For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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
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?
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.
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
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),.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.....
Quote
BroomWagon
Early '60s? Satanic Majesties?
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.
Quote
drbryant
The Stones, in my mind, have never released a bad album.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
drbryant
The Stones, in my mind, have never released a bad album.
yes, well that's all in your head
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.
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.