Tell Me :
Talk
Much of what you say is right, Doxa. It is true that the ups and downs creatively within the Stones sound and the choices they tended to make, does actually coincide pretty well with what was going on in more general terms within popular music, and it's a point that i have actually picked up on occasionally within other topics. Those singles and album releases do actually fit in with the context of their times so incredibly well. The mid eighties was a strange period, in many ways, though, because there was a sense that modern technology, synthetic sounds, drum machines etc. was really the way forward, and many longstanding artists were actually prepared to go along with this new musical recipie in an attempt to keep relevant, so to speak. Jagger's SHE'S THE BOSS, and PRIMITIVE COOL, in a sense are no different to Lou Reed's NEW SENSATIONS and MISTRIAL, and also Bob Dylan's EMPIRE BURLESQUE, in the way that they attempt to live within the context of their times, in order for them to be successful. As an album, i believe, SHE'S THE BOSS does largely show Jagger's meticulous eye for detail, in terms of the craftmanship of the songs, and the overall musical presentation to be found within its sound, yet also, and this perhaps is the more crucial point, it's perhaps the first time, on a large scale, within Jagger's career, that i've actually disliked to a large degree, his more personal vocal presentation. Empathy within his perception in drawing out the best from these songs, begins to fade, especially with regards to vocal sensitivity. Somehow, and perhaps for the first time in Jagger's career, these vocal interpretations seem truly detached, and ultimately pretty hollow. The thread with which Jagger seems so naturally attuned to in making the best of himself, seems to get lost around this time, which previously informed pretty much all of his (and the Stones) work. I believe largely that around this period Jagger begins to become less likeable, too. His considerable charm is perhaps no longer as present as it was previously, when he was making his earlier musical detours with the Stones. Something, somewhere, gets lost with Jagger in the mid eighties, and it was never to return fully. Many of those songs do appear rather gross, and more heavy handed in more general terms too, on SHE'S THE BOSS. Perhaps a contributing factor, alongside the more general contemporary sound of the album, and Jagger's voice, is the fact that the songs just don't swing without Charlie's more subtle drum sound. Many of the songs just sound flat and one dimensional by comparison, and all too obviously inferior, and especially when taken outside of the context of the mid eighties period.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 05:57 by Edward Twining.
It's a valid point that what hits you in the face as a teenager affects what you consider "great." I was 17 when Some Girls came out and I saw the Stones for the first time in '78. I became a rabid fan of pretty much everything they ever did since. Of course I discovered and fell in love with the earlier stuff later on. By contrast, I have an older brother who was a teenager when the Stones first came out. He thinks they've produced nothing of merit since Aftermath. He doesn't even care for the Banquet through Exile period. Go figure.
I pretty much agree with your description of mid-80's activities, and Jagger getting lost, or losing the touch, and I agree that he hasn't ever really survived from that. He lost something artistically for good. I try to explicate some of my thoughts about that. Be warned...
I tend to think that he made then some misjudgements in careerwise. The most obvious thing that he over-estimated his own contribution in the musical and popular success in the Stones and under-estimated the role of the others (or teh and altogether in that). He thought that it is him that makes it all great, be the context whatever. So he just shifted the context. Left the Stones and had his own army of studio musicians, and the world of new technology. But the result wasn't very convincing. Nor in popularwise. People voted with their feet. I am sure that was a shock for Jagger who had been used to an constant praisal and success for over 20 years. The enermous success he had with the Stones just few years earlier - their biggest selling albums ever: SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU, smashs hits "Miss You" and "Start Me Up", and then a world tour that opened a new page in the concert business - somehow gave him wrong illusions of his almighty in the business. The ego trip that even wins Michael Jackson's achievemnents in that category, RUNNNG OUT OF LUCK, is a horrible testimony of the times totally losing the touch to reality. So the 80's - that was hard to any 60's 70's icons - teached him a hard lesson of mortality.
Anyway, as it is tend to see, Jagger panicked, and run back to safe belt of The Stones. But it was different Jagger that once left the band. And I think this is the crucial thing: before his solo career Jagger thought The Stones as his the main vehicle of artistic expression. Whatever he has to say, or how to adapt latest trends, he used The Stones for that. But from 1989 on, he started to see the Stones solely as an enermously well paid from nine to five job (where he can enjoy being the superstar), which is based on nostalgy and conservatism. His job was to make sure that people will get a show that meets exactly the kind of expectations they have from the 'good old Stones'. My guess is that he got scared so much during the 80's that he NEVER again would risky his high-level career again. So he transformed The Stones into that kind of autopilot safe and sure Vegas act (and Jagger's over physical peterrpannish. almost freaky presence being the most important feature).
But was he lucky or reading the signs of the times accurately once again right? These are two things I am never able to distinguish as far as Jagger goes!. Of that two things needs be noted:
(1) The first was the fact that the 60's/70's generations (like their idols) that were almost or totally lost during the 80's were by the end of the decade turning into middle age, and concluded that "shit: we don't need to try to cope with the times any longer. We can enjoy our past primes." This is called nostalgia. Maybe, the fifties have had a kind own share of nostalgia earlier, but now was the time for the big rock generaions to get their share, and it turned out to be a huge business. The term like 'classical rock' was invented. And AOR too... This produced a potential audience that was a wealthy, too, which should not be unnoted. And they just got wealthier and wealthier, with more spare time, as the yaers go by.
(2) The other is that the radical optimism and 'futurism' based on new technology in instruments and music - plus all the hair rock antics, etc - and all that somehow lost its central role in culture by the end of the 80's/early 90's. The less theatrical and good old rock and roll made a come back (from Guns'n'Roses to Nirvana). Of course, the pop turned to rap in some point, and things like that occurred later but rock was still 'main stream' in the late 80's and especially early to mid-90's. That gave a wonderful platform for The Stones to develop their own classical version of rock. Like the punk movement helped The Stones to reinvent themselves in the late 70's, the new generations of rockers and their fans did that to them again. The package The Stones were able to offer just got better in marketwise as the years go by.
The result is that Jagger doesn't see records any longer artistically challenging or inspiring products as far as The Stones are concerned. Quite contrary: the more novel or challenging they would be, the worse it would be to their reputation (as a sort of established museum of rock). So the records, when they are done, are just made to give a glimpse of a living and breathing band, and thereby a justification to a new huge world tour to recicle the old songs and the safe package. Artistically the records need to be as Stones-sounding as possible, Stones-by-numbers. As they are.
So if Mick has a sort of artistic inspiration in music, he uses those in some other contexts, where - I think this is importnat - he can commercially fail since The Stones is such a safe and sure package to keep his superstar status, his Bigginess, alive. The Stones is like an insurance to be wealthy and succesfull. Elsewhere he can do anything.
But I think artistifically this all forms a dilemma: Jagger is never that great outside the Rolling Stones; he is best when he uses The Stones as his artistic medium. But he has not done that since UNDERCOVER (I think Jagger though at the time that the Stones can't reinvent themselves enough to suit the trends of the day. Perhaps like Mick Taylor a decade earlier he thought that the Stones just simply can't survive much longer anyhow. No future for them. But the climate changed.)
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 14:45 by Doxa.
Well Doxa, thanks for the praise >< I was about to say pretty much the same about you !!
Bob Dylan really did sink almost as low as it is possible to go with KNOCKED OUT LOADED, DOWN IN THE GROOVE and his horrendous live album DYLAN AND THE DEAD, and i doubted he'd ever come through it. However, considering in retrospect, that just three or four years earlier, he was still capable of recording a decent album such as INFIDELS, with a track like 'Jokerman', and some unreleased goodies (at the time) like 'Blind Willie Mctell', 'Foot Of Pride' etc, perhaps it was a little premature to completely write him off. Yes, 1989, was the year of the beginning of an awakening of more traditional sounds, and like you say, an acceptance of more acoustic guitar sounds, even though the production retained a little too much of a slickness, and an ultimately sterile sound. I can recall Bob Dylan's OH MERCY, the Stones STEEL WHEELS and Lou Reed's NEW YORK albums being received with a level of critical acclaim. However, arguably it is Bob's album that has stood the test of time the best, and the Stones STEEL WHEELS, which has really suffered, in retrospect because of its dated production, and pretty mediocre songs. I just feel, however that in 89, the media was so pleased that the Stones had patched things up and were touring again, that they overestimated the true value of STEEL WHEELS. Yes, the opening track 'Sad Sad Sad' actually really did sound like the classic Stones, even if ultimately the track proved a hollow shell. Lou Reed's NEW YORK was a much better album than STEEL WHEELS, but i do think the press overrated that album too, to a large degree. In terms of Lou's observational writing style it was great, but it too, suffered a little from being a little too musically conservative, on the whole, when compared with Lou's vintage classic material.
Bob Dylan has managed to record some really rather impressive albums in more recent years. Yes, his vocals may have been failing him technically for a while, but his voice is very sincere and ultimately believeable, as well as the tone, lyrically, of his material.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 19:40 by Edward Twining.
Interesting points of view on both counts, Witness.
I like TATTOO YOU, and very much in places, yet in many ways i perhaps appreciate it more now than i ever did back in the day. Maybe, for me, the passage of time has been ultimately very kind to the album, because the Stones, in my opinion, have never come anywhere near close to matching it in the intervening years. What one maybe took for granted a little more, in 81, in terms of the quality and consistency within TATTOO YOU, now seems like such a revelation, within the wonderful crafting of its sound, and the brilliance of Jagger's effectively mature vocals. The fact that the album's songs, mainly derived from different periods, is truly a wonder, because the album is so wonderfully cohesive in terms of its production and running order etc. The songs do manage to compliment each other so incredibly well. 'Start Me Up' and 'Waiting On A Friend' are true classics, that can stand next to the Stones earlier 'best of' output without fear of intimidation. I don't necessarily believe these songs are as good as the Stones classics from the first ten years, perhaps, but they can stand besides them fairly well all the same.
However, i'm less inclined to think of TATTOO YOU within the classic status some have afforded it. Had the Stones recorded albums, of a reasonably high quality since, TATTOO YOU wouldn't shine today quite so brightly. At least half of the songs, i can take or leave, yet they all contribute (perhaps apart from 'Neighbours') ultimately to a satisfying whole, the crafting of the album is just so great. TATTOO YOU is the final Stones album of a kind, in many ways. UNDERCOVER marked the start of a very unsettled period for the Stones, which included the rift between Jagger and Richards, and also the album DIRTY WORK. However, there is still a vibrancy to be found within these albums, which is maybe, perhaps, sometimes a little misguided at times, which is actually a very long way from the professionalism of the Stones 'product', when the group reconveined in 1989, and the Stones truly began to play it safe. However, it is TATTOO YOU that is ultimately be the last album to have that thicker, and much more sophisticated sound.
I like elements of EMOTIONAL RESCUE, too, more than SOME GIRLS, although i don't think there is any denying SOME GIRLS is a rather well focused and vital piece of work, which far exceeds EMOTIONAL RESCUE on those terms. However, EMOTIONAL RESCUE always strikes me as a slightly quirky album and maybe a touch experimental too, and it is in those areas very much for me, where its appeal ultimately lies. I agree that it is the second side of EMOTIONAL RESCUE, that is its most consistent, and most memorable, aside maybe from the songs 'Dance' and 'Indian Girl'. Yes, i think EMOTIONAL RESCUE is pretty lazily written/performed in places, yet it is also rather fascinating too, for much of the time.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-21 08:06 by Edward Twining.
i think somewhere in this sentence there's something i'm supposed to understand.
Early '60s? Satanic Majesties? Do you have a clue? Now, I see the people who are saying that the first Stones works that one hears is what they appreciate is totally bogus because Satanic Majesties Request is from 1967, yet, according to posters, if you knew of this work, you would be rubberstamping it with approval as a great album, period. But a great number of Rolling Stones fans find this album to be very poor and as time goes on, I think it is crummier, the post above sounds like a wind up. Beggar's Banquet is considered the great comeback.
Take the Doors as another example, are all of their Jim Morrison albums great? One of those albums are suppose to be pretty weak, I forget which one, I know for sure, LA Woman, Morrison Hotel, the first one are all regarded as very good. But according to the posters who say we like ones from a certain time, then one would supposedly like all of the Doors '60s work. These are windups.
I agree and disagree. My disagreement is that back in their heyday it wasn't about the money and the success of how the albums sold - they were too busy creating to care.
Now and since 1989 they've been too busy concerned about money and not the art of songwriting, as you pointed out. Their idea of "getting together" is for a few days or a week or whatever and bashing some songs out? That's for garage bands. The albums are merely a contractual procedure they've done. Which is strange considering they were The Stones, Man and they could've chosen to opt out at any time.
They don't need to do a new record ever again. They've got plenty of them. There's no reason for them to do a new record. Certainly not to use it as "an excuse to tour", which is pure bullshit. Their last true artistic adventure for, of and in an album and singles was Undercover: the last gasp of a band that found one more bit of inspiration in the studio while not worrying about touring. Did they make a stellar LP like the 1968-72 era? No. But it's still a damn fine album - and way different from a lot of what they did.
Since then it's been all smoke and mirrors (Dirty Work), excuses (Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge), confusion (Bridges To Babylon) and newer fresher excuses (the four new Licks and A Bigger Bang).
There's not been an album for the sake of being creative since 1983 and with the exception possibly with the bonus recordings/tracks from Exile and Some Girls, there never will be.
And why? Haven't they done enough?
It's not about 'doing enough'. If you're creative, the act of being creative doesn't reach a point of enough.
I think MJ hasn't seen the Stones as a truly creative vehicle for some time, (and agree with you that Undercover was a very creative final peak for them as a band) so starting in the mid-80s, you see him doing solo albums, movies and Superheavy....whether you like any of that is incidental, but he is being creative, just not within the Stones because I suspect he finds Keith somewhat stifling.
Keith had been the other creative half, and still sometimes comes up with interesting stuff, mostly ballads, but I think the drugs got the best of him by the end of the 70s.
Add Out of Control, Laugh I Nearly Died, Let Me Down Slow, Love is Strong, New Faces, Rain Fell Down.....hell! They could fill a whole concert with superb songs from their post Wyman era, and I'll take a Bigger Bang anytime over Beggars.
Well, early 60's as opposed to late 60's in Rolling Stones terms. Meaning the Brain Jones era (which defenitly includes Satanic) as opposed to the post Brain Jones era. Yes I know that strictly spoken Beggars and even Bleed could be considered Jones era. But in terms of musical influence Beggars wasn't anymore part of the Jones era, since his influence was minimal even one could argue nihil from JJF onwards. Meaning that without Brain the remaining Stones would still have made a Beggars, sounding pretty much similair as the one they made "with" Brain. But a Satanic, Aftermath or Buttons without Brain???? Unthinkable! Hence me not using the term late 60's for Satanic, for that is really the Beggars, Bleed, Get yer era, and a total different ballgame alltogether.
yes, well that's all in your head
Where do your opinions come from?
I would need some convincing that Satanic Majesties is an album that is intimately connected with Brian Jones,
[www.angelfire.com]
I think to say as This author says in his Everybody's Lucifer book that Satanic Majesties was so opposite of the R and B, R n R sound of the Rolling Stones that it was designed to get rid of Brian Jones is a far reach too.
I've seen the pictures where Brian Jones is all dressed up like a Prince, like Royalty, that is more in a Satanic Majesties flavor but I don't really know where that picture comes from.
But Satanic Majesties seems to sound worse as time goes by. And not very Brian Jone-ish at all.
In a way, I agree, everyone talks about a big 4, Beggars to Exile but I'm not that big of a fan of BB and grudgingly so of Sticky Fingers, I think Exile is their debateable best because we all have opinions and Let it bleed is close.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-21 23:57 by BroomWagon.
This was addressed to me. But I don't think we disagree at all. Their heyday actually was quite different in that sense. Let me explicate that with the brief SATANIC MAJESIES 'debate' we have here.
I like both BroomWagon's and Blue's posts above, but for different reasons. BroomWagon is right that Brian Jones didn't liked at all the concept and music of THEIR SATANIC (that psychedelic thing). This is the point I think is very much emphasized in any Brian Jones biography - or in better Stones biogaphy. He was very delighted when the band turned back to more blues-based music in BEGGARS BANQUET. But like Blue pointed out, Brian Jones made a huge visible contribution to SATANIC MAJESTIES. I would even say that even though the albums's concept was Mick and Keith's brainchild, the best the aims were achieved via Brian's musical insights. Thank to his musicanship, Brian Jones gave the album a lot of the depthness and richness it has.
I think it is due Brian's visible role on one hand, and after Mick and Keith had washed their hands out of it with their later music on the other, that by the early 70's when SATANIC MAJESTIES was seen as an 'official' flop or side-step in their career, the album turned to have an odd reputation of "blame it all on Brian Jones" - who probably was the most unwilling contributor in it! And since Brian's touch wasn't so visible anymore in BEGGARS BANQUET that also contributed in making the hasty and wrong jugment. Mick and Keith have never been too willing to straight out the picture; quite contrary.'
Okay that's it. Now let's turn to open up another 'myth', and to the point I really want to discuss: The "disaster" of SATANIC MAJESTIES and "renessaince" of BEGGARS BANQUET that seems to be an important part of Stones mythology. The point is, like Blue mentioned, SATANIC MAJESTIES was not any commercial failure, or any 'flop' in that sense. Nor was BEGGARS BANQUET any particular commercial success - actually it made worse in Billboard than SATANIC MAJESTIES. Both of them reflected typical Stones album sales of teh 60's. It was LET IT BLEED that really took the sales to a new level. The same goes for the singles. "Jumpin' Jack Flash" was a great hit - after to a partial failure of "We Love You" - but just it wasn't anything more special in that sense than "Ruby Tuesday" or "Let's Spend The Night Together" just a year earlier.
The point what I try to say that the "great come back" or "miracle" of BEGGARS BANQUET never happened in immediate commercial level. It only happened in artistic level. I think that is highly interesting: probably only time in their whole career, the commercial success doesn't seem to matter to them at all. When "Jumpin' Jack Flash" or especially BEGGARS BANQUET are mentioned in Stones books, or wherever in music liturature, they stand just in their musical merit, no mention of the commercial side. But for example, when the success of "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS are mentioned, and their significance to their career is stressed (like JJF and BB earlier), the big part of it is pointing out "Miss You" spending many weeks at peak position in Billboard, and SOME GIRLS selling - what? - 8 million copies or so. That's the argumment for them. But JJF or BB does not have that kind of things to back up them (Funny trivia: BEGGARS is the only Stones studio album that has never peaked any album list in any part of the world)
Now we are going to the most interesting point. Even the "artists' themselves seem to share this view. Even already in 1968 they believed in their new stuff and were proud of that, no matter if it was seen immediately in sales or anything ("Street Fighting Man" flopped in US charts, and the 'official' excuse of it suffering of censorship and banning, surely does not explain it all). They knew they had hitted the artistic jackpot. And it worked. They were keen on to tour the new material, and they continued the concept with "Honky Tonk Women" and LET IT BLEED; it with those items started to be reflected in their sales, too.
So, I think that period - 1968/69 - The Stones actually thought more in terms of their muse and artistic insight than in commercial ones. And at the time they didn't just look at instant sales and chartings: they really paid attention to the 'critics' section', and the opinion of their advanced contemporaries - such as John and Paul, Dylan, Warhol, counter culture, or whoever that was counted 'hip' at the time - weighted a lot. I think they - the whole music scene - had at the time a really tough high-level artistic competition going on, and the opinion of the 'right' scene - the others - really mattered a lot. It could be even that for a moment The Stones were directing their music to that 'sophistacated' audience more than to radio-friendliness and 'pop audiences'. To put it roughly: it was more rewarding to impress, say, John Lennon personally than just to have just another top ten hit. In many aspects, their music 'matured' a lot - like many of their contemporiers at the time - starting I think from SATANIC MAJESTIES but hitting the mark in BEGGARS BANQUET. Artistically speaking I think SATANIC MAJESTIES was an experiment that needed to be done in order to find a voice of their own. But the reason - let me recapitulate the point - why they changed the style or concept, and quickly refuted the merits of SATANIC MAJESTIES, didn't come from reflecting the sales of the album. Like said, and Blue pointed out, it didn't flopped commercially at all. The reason was artistic.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-22 11:11 by Doxa.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 20, 2011 05:45
Quote
Doxa
[This is a good point. If we look Jagger's (as the true leader and the brains of the band, right?) doings, he does things not by looking back and not really forward (visonally) but around - what's going on at the moment. The Stones in many sense are mirroring the whole rock and roll/pop music business: they did singles when that was the criterion of success, they did albums when that was the criterion, and they did huge concert tours when that turned out be the place where the money is. I don't doubt that the question of muse, or the lack of it, or having the drive and energy, or aging, has something to do with their story; surely they do. But still I believe there always has been external reasons to motivate the band into great achievements. I think the death of Stones' creative pulse funnily corresponds to the downhill of recorded music generally (as they once transformed from 'singles band' to albums band). I mean, if there weren't so much money in the touring business but instead in the record business still, I am quite sure we would have gotten more and better albums by the Stones. The premise of the argument is that in the case their future/career would have depended on them (to make great records). Since the nostalgia in the whole rock genre in general, they don't really 'need' new records to survive. The product they sell in huge tours is already done decades ago. They have afford to be as lazy as they want - as they actually have been - in that area.
I think Jagger is interesting guy in the sense that you can't really separate the artistic/economic sides of the things for him. They seem to go hand in hand, and you can't really explain guy's behavior without taking both into consideration (but of course, sometimes other is more prevailing; with the Stones since 1989 it looks like that the money is the only notivation, while his movies and solo recordings, SuperHeavy being the latest, are more artistically driven. I think with The Stones there was a brief period in 1968/69 when it was clearly more artistically than economically driven - or he believed so much to his muse, and to its commercial value, that he dared to do anything).
- Doxa
Much of what you say is right, Doxa. It is true that the ups and downs creatively within the Stones sound and the choices they tended to make, does actually coincide pretty well with what was going on in more general terms within popular music, and it's a point that i have actually picked up on occasionally within other topics. Those singles and album releases do actually fit in with the context of their times so incredibly well. The mid eighties was a strange period, in many ways, though, because there was a sense that modern technology, synthetic sounds, drum machines etc. was really the way forward, and many longstanding artists were actually prepared to go along with this new musical recipie in an attempt to keep relevant, so to speak. Jagger's SHE'S THE BOSS, and PRIMITIVE COOL, in a sense are no different to Lou Reed's NEW SENSATIONS and MISTRIAL, and also Bob Dylan's EMPIRE BURLESQUE, in the way that they attempt to live within the context of their times, in order for them to be successful. As an album, i believe, SHE'S THE BOSS does largely show Jagger's meticulous eye for detail, in terms of the craftmanship of the songs, and the overall musical presentation to be found within its sound, yet also, and this perhaps is the more crucial point, it's perhaps the first time, on a large scale, within Jagger's career, that i've actually disliked to a large degree, his more personal vocal presentation. Empathy within his perception in drawing out the best from these songs, begins to fade, especially with regards to vocal sensitivity. Somehow, and perhaps for the first time in Jagger's career, these vocal interpretations seem truly detached, and ultimately pretty hollow. The thread with which Jagger seems so naturally attuned to in making the best of himself, seems to get lost around this time, which previously informed pretty much all of his (and the Stones) work. I believe largely that around this period Jagger begins to become less likeable, too. His considerable charm is perhaps no longer as present as it was previously, when he was making his earlier musical detours with the Stones. Something, somewhere, gets lost with Jagger in the mid eighties, and it was never to return fully. Many of those songs do appear rather gross, and more heavy handed in more general terms too, on SHE'S THE BOSS. Perhaps a contributing factor, alongside the more general contemporary sound of the album, and Jagger's voice, is the fact that the songs just don't swing without Charlie's more subtle drum sound. Many of the songs just sound flat and one dimensional by comparison, and all too obviously inferior, and especially when taken outside of the context of the mid eighties period.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 05:57 by Edward Twining.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
ohcarol
()
Date: December 20, 2011 06:46
Not Really...
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: December 20, 2011 06:50
they do
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
stonesdan60
()
Date: December 20, 2011 11:23
Quote
crumbling_mice
It's a complicated argument this...I 'discovered' the Stones around 1970/71 so I always think of there hey day as being 70-79. I've read others on here who are older than me and tend to like the 66-70 era more and Brian's input. COnsequently I suppose if you go to your first Stones show in the 80's, 90's, 2000's and you are a teenager you could well see this as a golden age. Maybe it's the age you come across them that defines what you consider their best work/era. I don't know but is there anyone who would say Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile, Beggars Banquet weren't their best recordings?
It's a valid point that what hits you in the face as a teenager affects what you consider "great." I was 17 when Some Girls came out and I saw the Stones for the first time in '78. I became a rabid fan of pretty much everything they ever did since. Of course I discovered and fell in love with the earlier stuff later on. By contrast, I have an older brother who was a teenager when the Stones first came out. He thinks they've produced nothing of merit since Aftermath. He doesn't even care for the Banquet through Exile period. Go figure.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: December 20, 2011 12:04
As only an occasional reader of (and writer on ) IORR's Tell Me I would first like to refer to the sometimes stated three alternative major views of Rolling Stones musical output as I understand them. They imply musical horizons, that often supply us with yardsticks, with which we tend to measure this lifelong band's musical achievements. Else, it might be to much for one person to take in.
1. That the golden era belongs to either parts of or to the whole of the years up to and including 1967. That everything after their variously identified ending year is below par, possibly involving an outright degeneration following sooner or later. This major view is rather a class of contrasting views more than one single view.
2. That the years ’68 – ’72 are the one and only golden era. Not by all, however , by many Some Girls seems to be seen as a late fruit, and ,apparently, by quite many as well, (surprisingly to me) so is also Tattoo You. The majority of holders of this view claims with certainty that there is a mild or even thorough degeneration after this era's fulfillment.
3. That there are multi-peak eras spread all over the band's existence. This point of view does not mean that every issue of their music is equally good (as the humorous carricature will have it, only always interest). Besides, it includes or may include some slumps, possibly within almost all the band's years. It is contested even among the contenders of this third major view themselves which is which, however implicating that there need not be a general degeneration. That is, the third major view, is not one homogenous point of view, but rather a class of internally striding views.
I take a version of the third view, with one qualification. Up to a certain point in time (but when?), good Rolling Stones albums and singles also contributed to defining what rock in a wide sense was to be. After that time strong Stones releases are limited to continuing to be a partial mirror of its contemporary years. That applies to society and culture and sometimes politics, made with a Rolling Stones attitude to life, without any more having that defining ability of rock MUSIC as such. This does not necessarily imply less good musical output than before, being in part an ability to absorb contemporary musical influences into the Stones musical machinery.
As a contender of the major view 3, to my version of it, the first album, coupled with the German(?) Decca compilation Around and Around (most of the two early EPs and a single) , constitutes one first peak right at the outset. Not meaning that the following two albums in my evaluation mark a slump, only that they are not quite as good as the sensational forerunners. However, all the same they involve a highly interesting development and on a good level, with partially defining power maintained. The combination of a) their singles of this part of the sixties – with many marvellous noisy A-sides and very fine B-sides during years when singles' A-sides counted for something – and b) the mildly or more drastically experimenting albums Aftermath, Between the Buttons and Their Satanic Majesties’ Request (most sharply defined following the English catalogue) made a second peak. In my perspective: Of these latter three albums I think the first two has only one rather weak song, It’s not Easy, and TSMR has qualities that even shatter such a way of thinking and stands out on its own. The conventionally considered ’68 – ’72 peak (in my understanding the outcome of a fundamental break in what had become a development, the band returning to rock's ethnic components, but now transforming them to Rolling Stones music, however, often leaving the ethnic elements to stand forth ), is certainly a third peak. Goats Head Soup had fine ingredients to make it potential to prolong the ¨'68 -'72 era, but some songs failed to complete it on the same level, which amounted to relegate the album to a medium plus album. To me, on the other hand, IORR and Black and Blue both have their moments, but, by me, have to be considered a slump. And , controversially, I know, I hold Tattoo You to be the saddest moments of their career; Waiting on a Friend cannot almost alone save the album.
Some Girls is then also by me a grand album. Nonetheless, for me it is surpassed by Emotionally Rescue (with the latter five tracks expressing various kinds of negative feelings in emotionally a most fascinating way), Undercover and A Bigger Bang, all three of them; for me there is not one song on these three albums that I could have liked to have seen left out. That is no objection on my part to receiving tracks in addition. And to me Bridges to Babylon would have been on par with Some Girls if it had not been for three or four tracks, not the same as others would have nominated; some songs are even especially appealing. Voodoo Lounge, in its return to basics to move out in another musical direction, has, perhaps, too many somewhat «easy» songs (in the manner of Start Me up) to be considered more than a medium good album. Albums not mentioned here from the eighties on, in my view are of medium or medium minus Stones status. In that respect, they are not bad, and do not deserve to be slighted as bad, but cannot obtain the best evaluation; however, each has some interesting and to me attractive songs where I as often as not, like songs that are others’ special dislikes.
It is my privilege that this hierarchy of my subjective taste is not a closed and decided matter, but remains to be continually revised.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 12:08 by Witness.
1. That the golden era belongs to either parts of or to the whole of the years up to and including 1967. That everything after their variously identified ending year is below par, possibly involving an outright degeneration following sooner or later. This major view is rather a class of contrasting views more than one single view.
2. That the years ’68 – ’72 are the one and only golden era. Not by all, however , by many Some Girls seems to be seen as a late fruit, and ,apparently, by quite many as well, (surprisingly to me) so is also Tattoo You. The majority of holders of this view claims with certainty that there is a mild or even thorough degeneration after this era's fulfillment.
3. That there are multi-peak eras spread all over the band's existence. This point of view does not mean that every issue of their music is equally good (as the humorous carricature will have it, only always interest). Besides, it includes or may include some slumps, possibly within almost all the band's years. It is contested even among the contenders of this third major view themselves which is which, however implicating that there need not be a general degeneration. That is, the third major view, is not one homogenous point of view, but rather a class of internally striding views.
I take a version of the third view, with one qualification. Up to a certain point in time (but when?), good Rolling Stones albums and singles also contributed to defining what rock in a wide sense was to be. After that time strong Stones releases are limited to continuing to be a partial mirror of its contemporary years. That applies to society and culture and sometimes politics, made with a Rolling Stones attitude to life, without any more having that defining ability of rock MUSIC as such. This does not necessarily imply less good musical output than before, being in part an ability to absorb contemporary musical influences into the Stones musical machinery.
As a contender of the major view 3, to my version of it, the first album, coupled with the German(?) Decca compilation Around and Around (most of the two early EPs and a single) , constitutes one first peak right at the outset. Not meaning that the following two albums in my evaluation mark a slump, only that they are not quite as good as the sensational forerunners. However, all the same they involve a highly interesting development and on a good level, with partially defining power maintained. The combination of a) their singles of this part of the sixties – with many marvellous noisy A-sides and very fine B-sides during years when singles' A-sides counted for something – and b) the mildly or more drastically experimenting albums Aftermath, Between the Buttons and Their Satanic Majesties’ Request (most sharply defined following the English catalogue) made a second peak. In my perspective: Of these latter three albums I think the first two has only one rather weak song, It’s not Easy, and TSMR has qualities that even shatter such a way of thinking and stands out on its own. The conventionally considered ’68 – ’72 peak (in my understanding the outcome of a fundamental break in what had become a development, the band returning to rock's ethnic components, but now transforming them to Rolling Stones music, however, often leaving the ethnic elements to stand forth ), is certainly a third peak. Goats Head Soup had fine ingredients to make it potential to prolong the ¨'68 -'72 era, but some songs failed to complete it on the same level, which amounted to relegate the album to a medium plus album. To me, on the other hand, IORR and Black and Blue both have their moments, but, by me, have to be considered a slump. And , controversially, I know, I hold Tattoo You to be the saddest moments of their career; Waiting on a Friend cannot almost alone save the album.
Some Girls is then also by me a grand album. Nonetheless, for me it is surpassed by Emotionally Rescue (with the latter five tracks expressing various kinds of negative feelings in emotionally a most fascinating way), Undercover and A Bigger Bang, all three of them; for me there is not one song on these three albums that I could have liked to have seen left out. That is no objection on my part to receiving tracks in addition. And to me Bridges to Babylon would have been on par with Some Girls if it had not been for three or four tracks, not the same as others would have nominated; some songs are even especially appealing. Voodoo Lounge, in its return to basics to move out in another musical direction, has, perhaps, too many somewhat «easy» songs (in the manner of Start Me up) to be considered more than a medium good album. Albums not mentioned here from the eighties on, in my view are of medium or medium minus Stones status. In that respect, they are not bad, and do not deserve to be slighted as bad, but cannot obtain the best evaluation; however, each has some interesting and to me attractive songs where I as often as not, like songs that are others’ special dislikes.
It is my privilege that this hierarchy of my subjective taste is not a closed and decided matter, but remains to be continually revised.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 12:08 by Witness.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 20, 2011 13:10
Quote
Edward Twining
Much of what you say is right, Doxa. It is true that the ups and downs creatively within the Stones sound and the choices they tended to make, does actually coincide pretty well with what was going on in more general terms within popular music, and it's a point that i have actually picked up on occasionally within other topics. Those singles and album releases do actually fit in with the context of their times so incredibly well. The mid eighties was a strange period, in many ways, though, because there was a sense that modern technology, synthetic sounds, drum machines etc. was really the way forward, and many longstanding artists were actually prepared to go along with this new musical recipie in an attempt to keep relevant, so to speak. Jagger's SHE'S THE BOSS, and PRIMITIVE COOL, in a sense are no different to Lou Reed's NEW SENSATIONS and MISTRIAL, and also Bob Dylan's EMPIRE BURLESQUE, in the way that they attempt to live within the context of their times, in order for them to be successful. As an album, i believe, SHE'S THE BOSS does largely show Jagger's meticulous eye for detail, in terms of the craftmanship of the songs, and the overall musical presentation to be found within its sound, yet also, and this perhaps is the more crucial point, it's perhaps the first time, on a large scale, within Jagger's career, that i've actually disliked to a large degree, his more personal vocal presentation. Empathy within his perception in drawing out the best from these songs, begins to fade, especially with regards to vocal sensitivity. Somehow, and perhaps for the first time in Jagger's career, these vocal interpretations seem truly detached, and ultimately pretty hollow. The thread with which Jagger seems so naturally attuned to in making the best of himself, seems to get lost around this time, which previously informed pretty much all of his (and the Stones) work. I believe largely that around this period Jagger begins to become less likeable, too. His considerable charm is perhaps no longer as present as it was previously, when he was making his earlier musical detours with the Stones. Something, somewhere, gets lost with Jagger in the mid eighties, and it was never to return fully. Many of those songs do appear rather gross, and more heavy handed in more general terms too, on SHE'S THE BOSS. Perhaps a contributing factor, alongside the more general contemporary sound of the album, and Jagger's voice, is the fact that the songs just don't swing without Charlie's more subtle drum sound. Many of the songs just sound flat and one dimensional by comparison, and all too obviously inferior, and especially when taken outside of the context of the mid eighties period.
I pretty much agree with your description of mid-80's activities, and Jagger getting lost, or losing the touch, and I agree that he hasn't ever really survived from that. He lost something artistically for good. I try to explicate some of my thoughts about that. Be warned...
I tend to think that he made then some misjudgements in careerwise. The most obvious thing that he over-estimated his own contribution in the musical and popular success in the Stones and under-estimated the role of the others (or teh and altogether in that). He thought that it is him that makes it all great, be the context whatever. So he just shifted the context. Left the Stones and had his own army of studio musicians, and the world of new technology. But the result wasn't very convincing. Nor in popularwise. People voted with their feet. I am sure that was a shock for Jagger who had been used to an constant praisal and success for over 20 years. The enermous success he had with the Stones just few years earlier - their biggest selling albums ever: SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU, smashs hits "Miss You" and "Start Me Up", and then a world tour that opened a new page in the concert business - somehow gave him wrong illusions of his almighty in the business. The ego trip that even wins Michael Jackson's achievemnents in that category, RUNNNG OUT OF LUCK, is a horrible testimony of the times totally losing the touch to reality. So the 80's - that was hard to any 60's 70's icons - teached him a hard lesson of mortality.
Anyway, as it is tend to see, Jagger panicked, and run back to safe belt of The Stones. But it was different Jagger that once left the band. And I think this is the crucial thing: before his solo career Jagger thought The Stones as his the main vehicle of artistic expression. Whatever he has to say, or how to adapt latest trends, he used The Stones for that. But from 1989 on, he started to see the Stones solely as an enermously well paid from nine to five job (where he can enjoy being the superstar), which is based on nostalgy and conservatism. His job was to make sure that people will get a show that meets exactly the kind of expectations they have from the 'good old Stones'. My guess is that he got scared so much during the 80's that he NEVER again would risky his high-level career again. So he transformed The Stones into that kind of autopilot safe and sure Vegas act (and Jagger's over physical peterrpannish. almost freaky presence being the most important feature).
But was he lucky or reading the signs of the times accurately once again right? These are two things I am never able to distinguish as far as Jagger goes!. Of that two things needs be noted:
(1) The first was the fact that the 60's/70's generations (like their idols) that were almost or totally lost during the 80's were by the end of the decade turning into middle age, and concluded that "shit: we don't need to try to cope with the times any longer. We can enjoy our past primes." This is called nostalgia. Maybe, the fifties have had a kind own share of nostalgia earlier, but now was the time for the big rock generaions to get their share, and it turned out to be a huge business. The term like 'classical rock' was invented. And AOR too... This produced a potential audience that was a wealthy, too, which should not be unnoted. And they just got wealthier and wealthier, with more spare time, as the yaers go by.
(2) The other is that the radical optimism and 'futurism' based on new technology in instruments and music - plus all the hair rock antics, etc - and all that somehow lost its central role in culture by the end of the 80's/early 90's. The less theatrical and good old rock and roll made a come back (from Guns'n'Roses to Nirvana). Of course, the pop turned to rap in some point, and things like that occurred later but rock was still 'main stream' in the late 80's and especially early to mid-90's. That gave a wonderful platform for The Stones to develop their own classical version of rock. Like the punk movement helped The Stones to reinvent themselves in the late 70's, the new generations of rockers and their fans did that to them again. The package The Stones were able to offer just got better in marketwise as the years go by.
The result is that Jagger doesn't see records any longer artistically challenging or inspiring products as far as The Stones are concerned. Quite contrary: the more novel or challenging they would be, the worse it would be to their reputation (as a sort of established museum of rock). So the records, when they are done, are just made to give a glimpse of a living and breathing band, and thereby a justification to a new huge world tour to recicle the old songs and the safe package. Artistically the records need to be as Stones-sounding as possible, Stones-by-numbers. As they are.
So if Mick has a sort of artistic inspiration in music, he uses those in some other contexts, where - I think this is importnat - he can commercially fail since The Stones is such a safe and sure package to keep his superstar status, his Bigginess, alive. The Stones is like an insurance to be wealthy and succesfull. Elsewhere he can do anything.
But I think artistifically this all forms a dilemma: Jagger is never that great outside the Rolling Stones; he is best when he uses The Stones as his artistic medium. But he has not done that since UNDERCOVER (I think Jagger though at the time that the Stones can't reinvent themselves enough to suit the trends of the day. Perhaps like Mick Taylor a decade earlier he thought that the Stones just simply can't survive much longer anyhow. No future for them. But the climate changed.)
- Doxa
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 14:45 by Doxa.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 20, 2011 14:34
Spot on, Doxa.
The thing to remember about the mid eighties period was that nostalgia wasn't really placed so highly as it would become, certainly by the mid nineties, when a host of artists, including british acts especially like Oasis and Blur, would base much of their sound on a more retro feel, and also significantly acknowledge the artists from which they took their greatest inspiration. However, winding back to the mid eighties there really did seem a sort of sink or swim approach, to whether you were going to stay relevant, within the context of the importance of new technology, and the vital importance of video promotion, too. MTV loomed very large, and it did seem for a while that more traditional sounds were unlikely to ever fully make a comeback. However, i think slowly by the turn of the nineties, the tide did begin to turn, in favour of more traditional instrumentation and sound. To a degree MTV, also was responsible for this change within its UNPLUGGED series, where artists were encouraged to play their own songs, within a more stripped down setting, and this suited the veteran artists no end. I recall Eric Clapton and Neil Young, especially, benefitting from this exposure. It also enouraged the Stones to produce their take on the unplugged series, STRIPPED. That in a sense was a godsend to Jagger, especially, because he no longer had to try to be current, as he had attempted to do in his ill advised mid eighties solo career, to attain a level of credibility, when nostalgia (which was the current vibe), could pretty much see himself and the rest of the Stones through. It was also to the Stones advantage that the more recent (from the mid nineties onwards) monthly music magazine publications, such as MOJO, UNCUT, and THE WORD, were supremely effective in championing those classic groups and sounds, in addition to more contemporary groups, and many of their features are ultimately quite comprehensive and detailed on focusing on the classic rock period. Jagger need never again risk getting his fingers burnt to trying too earnestly to appear contemporary. It is quite obvious with his next solo release WANDERING SPIRIT, that a more retro approach was pretty much the dominant factor, and that from then on Jagger's solo career, was to exist as simply a detour away from his main vocation as the lead singer in the Rolling Stones (predominantly speaking) nostalgia act. Jagger need never risk getting his fingers burnt again, or risk getting his immense ego, once again severely deflated.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 14:42 by Edward Twining.
The thing to remember about the mid eighties period was that nostalgia wasn't really placed so highly as it would become, certainly by the mid nineties, when a host of artists, including british acts especially like Oasis and Blur, would base much of their sound on a more retro feel, and also significantly acknowledge the artists from which they took their greatest inspiration. However, winding back to the mid eighties there really did seem a sort of sink or swim approach, to whether you were going to stay relevant, within the context of the importance of new technology, and the vital importance of video promotion, too. MTV loomed very large, and it did seem for a while that more traditional sounds were unlikely to ever fully make a comeback. However, i think slowly by the turn of the nineties, the tide did begin to turn, in favour of more traditional instrumentation and sound. To a degree MTV, also was responsible for this change within its UNPLUGGED series, where artists were encouraged to play their own songs, within a more stripped down setting, and this suited the veteran artists no end. I recall Eric Clapton and Neil Young, especially, benefitting from this exposure. It also enouraged the Stones to produce their take on the unplugged series, STRIPPED. That in a sense was a godsend to Jagger, especially, because he no longer had to try to be current, as he had attempted to do in his ill advised mid eighties solo career, to attain a level of credibility, when nostalgia (which was the current vibe), could pretty much see himself and the rest of the Stones through. It was also to the Stones advantage that the more recent (from the mid nineties onwards) monthly music magazine publications, such as MOJO, UNCUT, and THE WORD, were supremely effective in championing those classic groups and sounds, in addition to more contemporary groups, and many of their features are ultimately quite comprehensive and detailed on focusing on the classic rock period. Jagger need never again risk getting his fingers burnt to trying too earnestly to appear contemporary. It is quite obvious with his next solo release WANDERING SPIRIT, that a more retro approach was pretty much the dominant factor, and that from then on Jagger's solo career, was to exist as simply a detour away from his main vocation as the lead singer in the Rolling Stones (predominantly speaking) nostalgia act. Jagger need never risk getting his fingers burnt again, or risk getting his immense ego, once again severely deflated.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 14:42 by Edward Twining.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 20, 2011 15:30
Really good point and observations, Edward: we speak exactly the same language here (but you with lesser grammatical and spelling mistakes!)
About the changing of the climate, I think STEEL WHEELS is an interesting instance. It is full-blooded 80's album in soundwise but especially in the late-80's form. For example, the point you said about going back traditional instruments, and even to 'bare' acoustics. There was a trend already in the late 80's when the sound of an almost forgotten instrument by then, acoustic guitar, was re-discovered, and it added a certain new fresh flavor to the otherwise over-produced songs of the day. I think "Black Velvet" by that Canadian singer (can't recall her name) was probably a trend setter, but there were many others, too. When The Stones added the pseudo-Spanish acoustic guitar solo to "Almost Hear You Sigh" that was clearly just following the trends (and surely not any innate insight) - which seemed to work with the Stones (even now it sounds a a bit unnatural). Of course, this trend srengthened hugely in the following yaers, esepcially contributed by the mentioned MTV Unplugged Series. Another a new late-80's phenomeon was the "world music" entering to scene, and The Stones answered it with "Continental Drift". Another contextual thing that fitted nicely to the Stones. The result is good and quite convincing again.
As I recall, the year 1989 altogether sounded a very promising one for a fan of "classic rock" - I hate the term! - thinking from what we were coming from. In that context STEEL WHEELS sounded very promising one, much better than, DIRTY WORK or Jagger's solo records (I don't think that way any longer.) Keith's solo album was probably too uncommercial to take seriously (and it had the reputaion: done just to piss Jagger); it was a classic in its own terms. But STEEL WHEELS had a good vibe in it. An album of hope. Then of course, the come back tour. Bob Dylan who was really lost during the decade made a masterful OH MERCY. Things looked getting better. For a short time... And now I think STEEL WHEELS is the album that is dated worst of any Stones albums. But OH MERCY still sounds as great as it did at the time.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 15:35 by Doxa.
)About the changing of the climate, I think STEEL WHEELS is an interesting instance. It is full-blooded 80's album in soundwise but especially in the late-80's form. For example, the point you said about going back traditional instruments, and even to 'bare' acoustics. There was a trend already in the late 80's when the sound of an almost forgotten instrument by then, acoustic guitar, was re-discovered, and it added a certain new fresh flavor to the otherwise over-produced songs of the day. I think "Black Velvet" by that Canadian singer (can't recall her name) was probably a trend setter, but there were many others, too. When The Stones added the pseudo-Spanish acoustic guitar solo to "Almost Hear You Sigh" that was clearly just following the trends (and surely not any innate insight) - which seemed to work with the Stones (even now it sounds a a bit unnatural). Of course, this trend srengthened hugely in the following yaers, esepcially contributed by the mentioned MTV Unplugged Series. Another a new late-80's phenomeon was the "world music" entering to scene, and The Stones answered it with "Continental Drift". Another contextual thing that fitted nicely to the Stones. The result is good and quite convincing again.
As I recall, the year 1989 altogether sounded a very promising one for a fan of "classic rock" - I hate the term! - thinking from what we were coming from. In that context STEEL WHEELS sounded very promising one, much better than, DIRTY WORK or Jagger's solo records (I don't think that way any longer.) Keith's solo album was probably too uncommercial to take seriously (and it had the reputaion: done just to piss Jagger); it was a classic in its own terms. But STEEL WHEELS had a good vibe in it. An album of hope. Then of course, the come back tour. Bob Dylan who was really lost during the decade made a masterful OH MERCY. Things looked getting better. For a short time... And now I think STEEL WHEELS is the album that is dated worst of any Stones albums. But OH MERCY still sounds as great as it did at the time.
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 15:35 by Doxa.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 20, 2011 19:02
Quote
Doxa
As I recall, the year 1989 altogether sounded a very promising one for a fan of "classic rock" - I hate the term! - thinking from what we were coming from. In that context STEEL WHEELS sounded very promising one, much better than, DIRTY WORK or Jagger's solo records (I don't think that way any longer.) Keith's solo album was probably too uncommercial to take seriously (and it had the reputaion: done just to piss Jagger); it was a classic in its own terms. But STEEL WHEELS had a good vibe in it. An album of hope. Then of course, the come back tour. Bob Dylan who was really lost during the decade made a masterful OH MERCY. Things looked getting better. For a short time... And now I think STEEL WHEELS is the album that is dated worst of any Stones albums. But OH MERCY still sounds as great as it did at the time.
- Doxa
Well Doxa, thanks for the praise >
< I was about to say pretty much the same about you !!Bob Dylan really did sink almost as low as it is possible to go with KNOCKED OUT LOADED, DOWN IN THE GROOVE and his horrendous live album DYLAN AND THE DEAD, and i doubted he'd ever come through it. However, considering in retrospect, that just three or four years earlier, he was still capable of recording a decent album such as INFIDELS, with a track like 'Jokerman', and some unreleased goodies (at the time) like 'Blind Willie Mctell', 'Foot Of Pride' etc, perhaps it was a little premature to completely write him off. Yes, 1989, was the year of the beginning of an awakening of more traditional sounds, and like you say, an acceptance of more acoustic guitar sounds, even though the production retained a little too much of a slickness, and an ultimately sterile sound. I can recall Bob Dylan's OH MERCY, the Stones STEEL WHEELS and Lou Reed's NEW YORK albums being received with a level of critical acclaim. However, arguably it is Bob's album that has stood the test of time the best, and the Stones STEEL WHEELS, which has really suffered, in retrospect because of its dated production, and pretty mediocre songs. I just feel, however that in 89, the media was so pleased that the Stones had patched things up and were touring again, that they overestimated the true value of STEEL WHEELS. Yes, the opening track 'Sad Sad Sad' actually really did sound like the classic Stones, even if ultimately the track proved a hollow shell. Lou Reed's NEW YORK was a much better album than STEEL WHEELS, but i do think the press overrated that album too, to a large degree. In terms of Lou's observational writing style it was great, but it too, suffered a little from being a little too musically conservative, on the whole, when compared with Lou's vintage classic material.
Bob Dylan has managed to record some really rather impressive albums in more recent years. Yes, his vocals may have been failing him technically for a while, but his voice is very sincere and ultimately believeable, as well as the tone, lyrically, of his material.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-20 19:40 by Edward Twining.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
bestfour
()
Date: December 20, 2011 20:20
Hi Folks, I feel EVERY Album has its own brilliance and favorites for everyone, it depends on your age when you buy it (is it your first Stones experience), whats happening in your life, because these will become your memories. Thats what happened for me, I have been fortunate to grow up with the Stones, Its All Over Now was my first record bought - I was still at school, so boy am I going back a few years. But I grew up, Album by Album, Tour by Tour and the Stones have been a huge part of my life, hard to put into words but they have been there through thick and thin, and I never read or listen to critics - I'm the only critic when it comes to the Stones. I just love the band - whats coming from the speakers, usually at high volume,is the Rolling Stones .... MP3 player with ALL albums in random play mode, sit back on the recliner and LISTEN to tracks from each decade,each album, not knowing which track is next... HEAVEN 
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
BroomWagon
()
Date: December 20, 2011 20:29
Dylan's vocals have been fine and I've seen him in concert, if I want to listen to a great voice, I'll break out the Pavorotti.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Edward Twining
()
Date: December 20, 2011 21:40
Quote
Witness
And , controversially, I know, I hold Tattoo You to be the saddest moments of their career; Waiting on a Friend cannot almost alone save the album.
Some Girls is then also by me a grand album. Nonetheless, for me it is surpassed by Emotionally Rescue (with the latter five tracks expressing various kinds of negative feelings in emotionally a most fascinating way),.
Interesting points of view on both counts, Witness.
I like TATTOO YOU, and very much in places, yet in many ways i perhaps appreciate it more now than i ever did back in the day. Maybe, for me, the passage of time has been ultimately very kind to the album, because the Stones, in my opinion, have never come anywhere near close to matching it in the intervening years. What one maybe took for granted a little more, in 81, in terms of the quality and consistency within TATTOO YOU, now seems like such a revelation, within the wonderful crafting of its sound, and the brilliance of Jagger's effectively mature vocals. The fact that the album's songs, mainly derived from different periods, is truly a wonder, because the album is so wonderfully cohesive in terms of its production and running order etc. The songs do manage to compliment each other so incredibly well. 'Start Me Up' and 'Waiting On A Friend' are true classics, that can stand next to the Stones earlier 'best of' output without fear of intimidation. I don't necessarily believe these songs are as good as the Stones classics from the first ten years, perhaps, but they can stand besides them fairly well all the same.
However, i'm less inclined to think of TATTOO YOU within the classic status some have afforded it. Had the Stones recorded albums, of a reasonably high quality since, TATTOO YOU wouldn't shine today quite so brightly. At least half of the songs, i can take or leave, yet they all contribute (perhaps apart from 'Neighbours') ultimately to a satisfying whole, the crafting of the album is just so great. TATTOO YOU is the final Stones album of a kind, in many ways. UNDERCOVER marked the start of a very unsettled period for the Stones, which included the rift between Jagger and Richards, and also the album DIRTY WORK. However, there is still a vibrancy to be found within these albums, which is maybe, perhaps, sometimes a little misguided at times, which is actually a very long way from the professionalism of the Stones 'product', when the group reconveined in 1989, and the Stones truly began to play it safe. However, it is TATTOO YOU that is ultimately be the last album to have that thicker, and much more sophisticated sound.
I like elements of EMOTIONAL RESCUE, too, more than SOME GIRLS, although i don't think there is any denying SOME GIRLS is a rather well focused and vital piece of work, which far exceeds EMOTIONAL RESCUE on those terms. However, EMOTIONAL RESCUE always strikes me as a slightly quirky album and maybe a touch experimental too, and it is in those areas very much for me, where its appeal ultimately lies. I agree that it is the second side of EMOTIONAL RESCUE, that is its most consistent, and most memorable, aside maybe from the songs 'Dance' and 'Indian Girl'. Yes, i think EMOTIONAL RESCUE is pretty lazily written/performed in places, yet it is also rather fascinating too, for much of the time.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-21 08:06 by Edward Twining.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
thabo
()
Date: December 20, 2011 22:30
Yes I think the latter day Stones albums are underrated by some so called Stones fans, who intellectualise the reality of their nostalgic longing for their own young age, and the closest they can get to that, is by evoking that feel through the music they listened to during those young years of themselves. I myself hardly (if ever) listen to the Stones music from the 68-72 period, but I do listen a lot to the last three studio albums they made (Voodoo, Bridges and Bigger Bang), and to my mind those last three are suberb albums. I also love their 80's albums and their early 60's work (especially Satanic), But the period 68 to 72 has always been and always will be the era that you will never hear in my house, Just don't like the vibe of that era.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 20, 2011 23:24
Quote
thabo
Yes I think the latter day Stones albums are underrated by some so called Stones fans, who intellectualise the reality of their nostalgic longing for their own young age, and the closest they can get to that, is by evoking that feel through the music they listened to during those young years of themselves.
i think somewhere in this sentence there's something i'm supposed to understand.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: December 21, 2011 02:32
No they don't. It's a simple issue of inspiration and quality.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
BroomWagon
()
Date: December 21, 2011 05:01
Quote
thabo
Yes I think the latter day Stones albums are underrated by some so called Stones fans, who intellectualise the reality of their nostalgic longing for their own young age, and the closest they can get to that, is by evoking that feel through the music they listened to during those young years of themselves. I myself hardly (if ever) listen to the Stones music from the 68-72 period, but I do listen a lot to the last three studio albums they made (Voodoo, Bridges and Bigger Bang), and to my mind those last three are suberb albums. I also love their 80's albums and their early 60's work (especially Satanic), But the period 68 to 72 has always been and always will be the era that you will never hear in my house, Just don't like the vibe of that era.
Early '60s? Satanic Majesties? Do you have a clue? Now, I see the people who are saying that the first Stones works that one hears is what they appreciate is totally bogus because Satanic Majesties Request is from 1967, yet, according to posters, if you knew of this work, you would be rubberstamping it with approval as a great album, period. But a great number of Rolling Stones fans find this album to be very poor and as time goes on, I think it is crummier, the post above sounds like a wind up. Beggar's Banquet is considered the great comeback.
Take the Doors as another example, are all of their Jim Morrison albums great? One of those albums are suppose to be pretty weak, I forget which one, I know for sure, LA Woman, Morrison Hotel, the first one are all regarded as very good. But according to the posters who say we like ones from a certain time, then one would supposedly like all of the Doors '60s work. These are windups.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
BroomWagon
()
Date: December 21, 2011 05:21
I never criticize basically, the last 4 albums, A bigger bang, Voodoo lounge, Steel Wheels and Bridges to Babylon. Undercover and Dirty work are a bit rancid. I myself prefer to listen to a few 3 minute songs rather than hear 10 minute Finger Print File or even 8 minute Can you hear me knocking though Midnight Rambler works totally for it's run as a long song. Some of what I personally prefer is just a lighter subject, Ruby Tuesday vs. Dancing with Mr. D and like songs.
I recognize the Rolling Stones had a fine run in the eyes of a vast majority with the big 4, to me, Beggars Banquet is different from Let it bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile, I feel these 3 are great statements on Rock and Roll, Banquet being a bit bluezy but at the same time, the 4 albums share a grittiness with which we define the Rolling Stones, defining the Stones in a manner that some Beatles albums such as Abbey road, the White album and Sgt. Pepper's defines the Beatles. These albums meaning the Beatles, the Stones and even the Who with Tommy and Who's Next were so big, really they had a cultural impact. Of course, Bob Dylan did the same.
Bridges to Babylon has the Millwall Lion, a football team in London and Babylon is a reggae inference. I have a Bridges to Babylon tie even. I find these albums especially Voodoo lounge and ABB to be entertaining. It seems some people take issue with what one prefers.
If the Stones did reggae, they should have gone into it full tilt, they did quite a bit but not enough.
I recognize the Rolling Stones had a fine run in the eyes of a vast majority with the big 4, to me, Beggars Banquet is different from Let it bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile, I feel these 3 are great statements on Rock and Roll, Banquet being a bit bluezy but at the same time, the 4 albums share a grittiness with which we define the Rolling Stones, defining the Stones in a manner that some Beatles albums such as Abbey road, the White album and Sgt. Pepper's defines the Beatles. These albums meaning the Beatles, the Stones and even the Who with Tommy and Who's Next were so big, really they had a cultural impact. Of course, Bob Dylan did the same.
Bridges to Babylon has the Millwall Lion, a football team in London and Babylon is a reggae inference. I have a Bridges to Babylon tie even. I find these albums especially Voodoo lounge and ABB to be entertaining. It seems some people take issue with what one prefers.
If the Stones did reggae, they should have gone into it full tilt, they did quite a bit but not enough.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: December 21, 2011 07:22
Quote
DoxaQuote
drewmasterQuote
Edward Twining
You say that the Stones decline is due to a general laziness
Another way to look at is in terms of priorities: once the main source of financial revenue shifted from albums to touring, the artistic quality of the albums became of secondary importance to the Stones, and they invested more of their time and energy into the shows.
Drew
This is a good point. If we look Jagger's doings he does things not by looking back and not really forward but around - what's going on at the moment...I think the death of Stones' creative pulse funnily corresponds to the downhill of recorded music generally. If there weren't so much money in the touring business but instead in the record business still, I am quite sure we would have gotten more and better albums by the Stones.
I agree and disagree. My disagreement is that back in their heyday it wasn't about the money and the success of how the albums sold - they were too busy creating to care.
Now and since 1989 they've been too busy concerned about money and not the art of songwriting, as you pointed out. Their idea of "getting together" is for a few days or a week or whatever and bashing some songs out? That's for garage bands. The albums are merely a contractual procedure they've done. Which is strange considering they were The Stones, Man and they could've chosen to opt out at any time.
They don't need to do a new record ever again. They've got plenty of them. There's no reason for them to do a new record. Certainly not to use it as "an excuse to tour", which is pure bullshit. Their last true artistic adventure for, of and in an album and singles was Undercover: the last gasp of a band that found one more bit of inspiration in the studio while not worrying about touring. Did they make a stellar LP like the 1968-72 era? No. But it's still a damn fine album - and way different from a lot of what they did.
Since then it's been all smoke and mirrors (Dirty Work), excuses (Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge), confusion (Bridges To Babylon) and newer fresher excuses (the four new Licks and A Bigger Bang).
There's not been an album for the sake of being creative since 1983 and with the exception possibly with the bonus recordings/tracks from Exile and Some Girls, there never will be.
And why? Haven't they done enough?
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: December 21, 2011 07:44
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
DoxaQuote
drewmasterQuote
Edward Twining
You say that the Stones decline is due to a general laziness
Another way to look at is in terms of priorities: once the main source of financial revenue shifted from albums to touring, the artistic quality of the albums became of secondary importance to the Stones, and they invested more of their time and energy into the shows.
Drew
This is a good point. If we look Jagger's doings he does things not by looking back and not really forward but around - what's going on at the moment...I think the death of Stones' creative pulse funnily corresponds to the downhill of recorded music generally. If there weren't so much money in the touring business but instead in the record business still, I am quite sure we would have gotten more and better albums by the Stones.
I agree and disagree. My disagreement is that back in their heyday it wasn't about the money and the success of how the albums sold - they were too busy creating to care.
Now and since 1989 they've been too busy concerned about money and not the art of songwriting, as you pointed out. Their idea of "getting together" is for a few days or a week or whatever and bashing some songs out? That's for garage bands. The albums are merely a contractual procedure they've done. Which is strange considering they were The Stones, Man and they could've chosen to opt out at any time.
They don't need to do a new record ever again. They've got plenty of them. There's no reason for them to do a new record. Certainly not to use it as "an excuse to tour", which is pure bullshit. Their last true artistic adventure for, of and in an album and singles was Undercover: the last gasp of a band that found one more bit of inspiration in the studio while not worrying about touring. Did they make a stellar LP like the 1968-72 era? No. But it's still a damn fine album - and way different from a lot of what they did.
Since then it's been all smoke and mirrors (Dirty Work), excuses (Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge), confusion (Bridges To Babylon) and newer fresher excuses (the four new Licks and A Bigger Bang).
There's not been an album for the sake of being creative since 1983 and with the exception possibly with the bonus recordings/tracks from Exile and Some Girls, there never will be.
And why? Haven't they done enough?
It's not about 'doing enough'. If you're creative, the act of being creative doesn't reach a point of enough.
I think MJ hasn't seen the Stones as a truly creative vehicle for some time, (and agree with you that Undercover was a very creative final peak for them as a band) so starting in the mid-80s, you see him doing solo albums, movies and Superheavy....whether you like any of that is incidental, but he is being creative, just not within the Stones because I suspect he finds Keith somewhat stifling.
Keith had been the other creative half, and still sometimes comes up with interesting stuff, mostly ballads, but I think the drugs got the best of him by the end of the 70s.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: December 21, 2011 08:09
Well, one can read more into 'haven't they done enough' outside the exact context of 'being creative'. As Dirty Work is proof of, 'done enough' and 'being creative' does not equal turd shining.
On another point, you said being creative doesn't reach a point of enough - true.
HOWEVER that does not mean cranking out boring imitative bland crap with the occasional good song does not equal GOOD or QUALITY creativity!
Which, I would think, is a moot point at this point ha ha.
Afterall, there can be good creativity and bad creativity. One might think the bad creativity is (enter words here)!
On another point, you said being creative doesn't reach a point of enough - true.
HOWEVER that does not mean cranking out boring imitative bland crap with the occasional good song does not equal GOOD or QUALITY creativity!
Which, I would think, is a moot point at this point ha ha.
Afterall, there can be good creativity and bad creativity. One might think the bad creativity is (enter words here)!
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: December 21, 2011 08:58
I don't know 'bout albums but 'Anybody seen my baby?' is def on my top 10 list over Stones best songs ever.....
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
thabo
()
Date: December 21, 2011 15:38
Quote
Come On
I don't know 'bout albums but 'Anybody seen my baby?' is def on my top 10 list over Stones best songs ever.....
Add Out of Control, Laugh I Nearly Died, Let Me Down Slow, Love is Strong, New Faces, Rain Fell Down.....hell! They could fill a whole concert with superb songs from their post Wyman era, and I'll take a Bigger Bang anytime over Beggars.
Quote
BroomWagon
Early '60s? Satanic Majesties?
Well, early 60's as opposed to late 60's in Rolling Stones terms. Meaning the Brain Jones era (which defenitly includes Satanic) as opposed to the post Brain Jones era. Yes I know that strictly spoken Beggars and even Bleed could be considered Jones era. But in terms of musical influence Beggars wasn't anymore part of the Jones era, since his influence was minimal even one could argue nihil from JJF onwards. Meaning that without Brain the remaining Stones would still have made a Beggars, sounding pretty much similair as the one they made "with" Brain. But a Satanic, Aftermath or Buttons without Brain???? Unthinkable! Hence me not using the term late 60's for Satanic, for that is really the Beggars, Bleed, Get yer era, and a total different ballgame alltogether.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: December 21, 2011 17:48
The Stones, in my mind, have never released a bad album. Voodoo Lounge and Stripped are among their best. A Bigger Bang is close. The rest are a cut below, but nothing to be ashamed of. Amazing consistency.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: December 21, 2011 17:55
Quote
drbryant
The Stones, in my mind, have never released a bad album. Voodoo Lounge and Stripped are among their best. A Bigger Bang is close. The rest are a cut below, but nothing to be ashamed of. Amazing consistency.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: December 21, 2011 17:58
Quote
drbryant
The Stones, in my mind, have never released a bad album.
yes, well that's all in your head
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: December 21, 2011 22:09
Quote
StonesTodQuote
drbryant
The Stones, in my mind, have never released a bad album.
yes, well that's all in your head
Where do your opinions come from?
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
BroomWagon
()
Date: December 21, 2011 23:39
Quote
thaboQuote
Come On
I don't know 'bout albums but 'Anybody seen my baby?' is def on my top 10 list over Stones best songs ever.....
Add Out of Control, Laugh I Nearly Died, Let Me Down Slow, Love is Strong, New Faces, Rain Fell Down.....hell! They could fill a whole concert with superb songs from their post Wyman era, and I'll take a Bigger Bang anytime over Beggars.Quote
BroomWagon
Early '60s? Satanic Majesties?
Well, early 60's as opposed to late 60's in Rolling Stones terms. Meaning the Brain Jones era (which defenitly includes Satanic) as opposed to the post Brain Jones era. Yes I know that strictly spoken Beggars and even Bleed could be considered Jones era. But in terms of musical influence Beggars wasn't anymore part of the Jones era, since his influence was minimal even one could argue nihil from JJF onwards. Meaning that without Brain the remaining Stones would still have made a Beggars, sounding pretty much similair as the one they made "with" Brain. But a Satanic, Aftermath or Buttons without Brain???? Unthinkable! Hence me not using the term late 60's for Satanic, for that is really the Beggars, Bleed, Get yer era, and a total different ballgame alltogether.
I would need some convincing that Satanic Majesties is an album that is intimately connected with Brian Jones,
[www.angelfire.com]
I think to say as This author says in his Everybody's Lucifer book that Satanic Majesties was so opposite of the R and B, R n R sound of the Rolling Stones that it was designed to get rid of Brian Jones is a far reach too.
I've seen the pictures where Brian Jones is all dressed up like a Prince, like Royalty, that is more in a Satanic Majesties flavor but I don't really know where that picture comes from.
But Satanic Majesties seems to sound worse as time goes by. And not very Brian Jone-ish at all.
In a way, I agree, everyone talks about a big 4, Beggars to Exile but I'm not that big of a fan of BB and grudgingly so of Sticky Fingers, I think Exile is their debateable best because we all have opinions and Let it bleed is close.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-21 23:57 by BroomWagon.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Blue
()
Date: December 22, 2011 00:52
Brian Jones is all over Satanic Majesties! His mellotron helps create the psychedelia of the album as it had never been done before, especially on 2000 Light Years, Rainbow, as well as The Citadel. He played sitar, organ, brass instruments such as the sax and flute on the album and this is pretty common knowledge. I personally love the album, even more than Sgt. Pepper, i remember it was very popular in 67-68, went to #2 on Billboard in '68 and it seemed like everyone had a copy if the album. I think what weakened it in the reviews was that the bad songs were/are considered really bad, like On With The Show...but songs like 2000 Man, The Citadel, Rainbow, and of course 2000 Light Years are truly brilliant IMHO.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: December 22, 2011 10:44
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I agree and disagree. My disagreement is that back in their heyday it wasn't about the money and the success of how the albums sold - they were too busy creating to care.
This was addressed to me. But I don't think we disagree at all. Their heyday actually was quite different in that sense. Let me explicate that with the brief SATANIC MAJESIES 'debate' we have here.
I like both BroomWagon's and Blue's posts above, but for different reasons. BroomWagon is right that Brian Jones didn't liked at all the concept and music of THEIR SATANIC (that psychedelic thing). This is the point I think is very much emphasized in any Brian Jones biography - or in better Stones biogaphy. He was very delighted when the band turned back to more blues-based music in BEGGARS BANQUET. But like Blue pointed out, Brian Jones made a huge visible contribution to SATANIC MAJESTIES. I would even say that even though the albums's concept was Mick and Keith's brainchild, the best the aims were achieved via Brian's musical insights. Thank to his musicanship, Brian Jones gave the album a lot of the depthness and richness it has.
I think it is due Brian's visible role on one hand, and after Mick and Keith had washed their hands out of it with their later music on the other, that by the early 70's when SATANIC MAJESTIES was seen as an 'official' flop or side-step in their career, the album turned to have an odd reputation of "blame it all on Brian Jones" - who probably was the most unwilling contributor in it! And since Brian's touch wasn't so visible anymore in BEGGARS BANQUET that also contributed in making the hasty and wrong jugment. Mick and Keith have never been too willing to straight out the picture; quite contrary.'
Okay that's it. Now let's turn to open up another 'myth', and to the point I really want to discuss: The "disaster" of SATANIC MAJESTIES and "renessaince" of BEGGARS BANQUET that seems to be an important part of Stones mythology. The point is, like Blue mentioned, SATANIC MAJESTIES was not any commercial failure, or any 'flop' in that sense. Nor was BEGGARS BANQUET any particular commercial success - actually it made worse in Billboard than SATANIC MAJESTIES. Both of them reflected typical Stones album sales of teh 60's. It was LET IT BLEED that really took the sales to a new level. The same goes for the singles. "Jumpin' Jack Flash" was a great hit - after to a partial failure of "We Love You" - but just it wasn't anything more special in that sense than "Ruby Tuesday" or "Let's Spend The Night Together" just a year earlier.
The point what I try to say that the "great come back" or "miracle" of BEGGARS BANQUET never happened in immediate commercial level. It only happened in artistic level. I think that is highly interesting: probably only time in their whole career, the commercial success doesn't seem to matter to them at all. When "Jumpin' Jack Flash" or especially BEGGARS BANQUET are mentioned in Stones books, or wherever in music liturature, they stand just in their musical merit, no mention of the commercial side. But for example, when the success of "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS are mentioned, and their significance to their career is stressed (like JJF and BB earlier), the big part of it is pointing out "Miss You" spending many weeks at peak position in Billboard, and SOME GIRLS selling - what? - 8 million copies or so. That's the argumment for them. But JJF or BB does not have that kind of things to back up them (Funny trivia: BEGGARS is the only Stones studio album that has never peaked any album list in any part of the world)
Now we are going to the most interesting point. Even the "artists' themselves seem to share this view. Even already in 1968 they believed in their new stuff and were proud of that, no matter if it was seen immediately in sales or anything ("Street Fighting Man" flopped in US charts, and the 'official' excuse of it suffering of censorship and banning, surely does not explain it all). They knew they had hitted the artistic jackpot. And it worked. They were keen on to tour the new material, and they continued the concept with "Honky Tonk Women" and LET IT BLEED; it with those items started to be reflected in their sales, too.
So, I think that period - 1968/69 - The Stones actually thought more in terms of their muse and artistic insight than in commercial ones. And at the time they didn't just look at instant sales and chartings: they really paid attention to the 'critics' section', and the opinion of their advanced contemporaries - such as John and Paul, Dylan, Warhol, counter culture, or whoever that was counted 'hip' at the time - weighted a lot. I think they - the whole music scene - had at the time a really tough high-level artistic competition going on, and the opinion of the 'right' scene - the others - really mattered a lot. It could be even that for a moment The Stones were directing their music to that 'sophistacated' audience more than to radio-friendliness and 'pop audiences'. To put it roughly: it was more rewarding to impress, say, John Lennon personally than just to have just another top ten hit. In many aspects, their music 'matured' a lot - like many of their contemporiers at the time - starting I think from SATANIC MAJESTIES but hitting the mark in BEGGARS BANQUET. Artistically speaking I think SATANIC MAJESTIES was an experiment that needed to be done in order to find a voice of their own. But the reason - let me recapitulate the point - why they changed the style or concept, and quickly refuted the merits of SATANIC MAJESTIES, didn't come from reflecting the sales of the album. Like said, and Blue pointed out, it didn't flopped commercially at all. The reason was artistic.
- Doxa
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2011-12-22 11:11 by Doxa.
Re: Latter Day Stones Albums Deserve More Credit
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: December 22, 2011 16:46
Doxa, you said what I said only in A LOT more words!
TSMR was good for them. They lost their way and then found it again with BEGGARS. I've always thought that. The wrong drugs, whatever.
But certainly the success aspect of a single or album, mostly albums especially later on, got tainted beyond artistic respectability when Mick started having his success coloured and determined by sales. When that happened, it wasn't about the music anymore, it was about the money. Which goes to show that money can't write good songs. Mick wanted the money and put out crap like DIRTY WORK? No art worth a shit about that album.
TSMR was good for them. They lost their way and then found it again with BEGGARS. I've always thought that. The wrong drugs, whatever.
But certainly the success aspect of a single or album, mostly albums especially later on, got tainted beyond artistic respectability when Mick started having his success coloured and determined by sales. When that happened, it wasn't about the music anymore, it was about the money. Which goes to show that money can't write good songs. Mick wanted the money and put out crap like DIRTY WORK? No art worth a shit about that album.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1676
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10