Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
drewmaster
So to me, "Laugh I Nearly Died" is every bit as much of 'classic' as, say "Gimme Shelter".

Drew

Interesting point of view, Drew. My feelings are, if the Stones are ever mildly successful in more recent years, it is generally with songs that are a little less Stones like in terms of their more typical riff based rockers - songs perhaps like 'Thru and Thru', 'You Don't Have To Mean It', and 'Already Over Me' for example. Perhaps the reasons they are a little better is because they are rather less inclined to represent the Stones going through the motions, and feeling the need to betray their ages etc. with stupid posturing. These songs carry a little more weight, and in 'You Don't Have To Mean It', a level of charm, also. 'Laugh I Nearly Died' is another example and finds the Stones attempting something a little different, and to a point it works. However, i'm not keen on Jagger's vocals, especially as the song gathers steam, because i find them rather heavy handed, and quite unbearable in places. Jagger, in his younger days may have done this song more justice. As far as being a classic Stones song is concerned, i think it all depends in the context in which it appears. On A BIGGER BANG the song may appear quite impressive, yet in the bigger scheme of things, and especially if it had appeared on an album like BLACK AND BLUE, it would have been a pretty decent, but perhaps ultimately unremarkable track. 'Laugh I Nearly Died' does have some pleasing elements, mind, and if it wasn't for Jagger's voice i would have rated it rather more highly.

A BIGGER BANG was a Stones album i had rather mixed feelings for, before actually hearing it, because the Stones previous new songs on the FORTY LICKS compilation were really amongst the most underwhelming of their career in my opinion. I love the earlier Stones dearly, but i'd rather them not record any new material, if the standard was to be so poor. However, on a first listen to A BIGGER BANG, i was mildly surprised because the album sounded much better than i anticipated, because the songs did seem a lot sharper than those new ones on FORTY LICKS. However, it only maybe took me a couple of further listens for the illusion to wear off, and for me to conclude there's really nothing at all behind what you hear. These songs exist on the surface, yet there's so very depth to them. Again, it's just the Stones going through the motions, and recycling riffs etc. and cranking out enough sounds to fill an album (or maybe even a double - it goes on for so long!). A BIGGER BANG is ultimately a very lazy album, which the Stones could have recorded with their eyes closed through much of it. 'Rough Justice', 'Oh No Not You Again' and 'Sweet Neo Con' are really songs not worthy of their name, musically or lyrically, and for the most part those songs, and many of the others too, actually make me cringe. Jagger is just so utterly juvenile too in his lyrics at times.

Quote
drewmaster
As I understand it, in the 60's and early 70's the Stones spent days and days honing and refining each of the songs that they were considering releasing publicly. (Just look at SFTD, for example). Mick and Keith were joined at the hip with a driving ambition to create great songs. And they knew, deep down, that it takes enormous time and effort to create great songs. In later years, they still had the talent to write great songs, but they had lost the drive. Moreover, the fractured relationship between Mick and Keith meant that they were unable to spend as much time together and hone their songs like they used to. The result: spotty albums that contain some true classics and some real duds.

Just my two cents.

Drew

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
drewmaster
As I understand it, in the 60's and early 70's the Stones spent days and days honing and refining each of the songs that they were considering releasing publicly. (Just look at SFTD, for example). Mick and Keith were joined at the hip with a driving ambition to create great songs. And they knew, deep down, that it takes enormous time and effort to create great songs. In later years, they still had the talent to write great songs, but they had lost the drive. Moreover, the fractured relationship between Mick and Keith meant that they were unable to spend as much time together and hone their songs like they used to. The result: spotty albums that contain some true classics and some real duds.

Just my two cents.

Drew

Yes, Drew, although the spotty albums that contain true classics and some real duds, extend only as far as, and including TATTOO YOU, and thereafter there aren't any true classics. Ultimately, it depends on how you choose to define 'classic'. If you use the wonderfully crafted singles 'Satisfaction', Jumpin' Jack Flash', 'Brown Sugar' etc. as the yardstick, perhaps 'Start Me Up' is the last classic of sorts. Of course, there was always a great deal more breadth to the Stones music than those wonderfully engaging rockers, and variety was often one of their true assets. However, whatever guise the Stones have chosen to record in post TATTOO YOU, i can't honestly say i can hear anything that could really hold its own against the Stones earlier work, and deserves to be as highly regarded. The Stones are just seeing themselves through, and it's so true, their true inspiration left them decades ago. It will never come back now because its been gone too long for that, and the Stones are just too old.

Quote
treaclefingers
I don't think it all ended with Tattoo You, but a decline was and is evident, and probably has more to do with a general 'laziness' than talent decline, as they don't spend as much time together, or as much time crafting songs.

Quote
Edward Twining

You say that the Stones decline is due to a general laziness

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
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

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
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

given these options, i'll take the laziness....

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
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

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
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

given these options, i'll take the laziness....

That's the easy way out, StonesTod.

Drew

Quote
Spud
It must count for something that scores of the younger posters on this board were originally drawn in by the band's "modern era work" and performances.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
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 (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
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
BroomWagon

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?

There could be some truth to this, however, would one say this is the same for Bob Dylan and other artists? I did not know Bob's old catalog that well except for the famous songs like say "Blowin' in the wind' but I think his older stuff is much more remarkable than the later albums and I mean really going back in Dylan's catalog, Freewheelin' is great, Another side, even before the famous Hiway/Bring it home and Blonde on Blonde albums though John Wesley Hardin rightfully is hailed as one of his best. I think Blood on the tracks in fact, is fairly commercial in flavor though I do have it along with older and newer albums, he has such an extensive discography. I've come not to be as fond of Blood on the tracks and something like Freewheelin' I see as being much better.

I can listen to the Beatles and positively say, I like the earlier stuff much more than the Hey Jude, Let it be Abbey road, even Sgt. Pepper's, Revolver, Rubber Soul era though only in a general sense have I known their music.

The Who, well, they've been pretty constant, but from Tommy, Who's Next, Quad and even Who's next and By numbers, pretty consistent in putting out high quality music, better to me than Happy Jack and those others though I would not be critical of someone if they preffered the older songs, Anytime, Can't explain, those are still great songs.

Early Kinks, way the better to me.

Part of the image of the Ramones was pumping out a bunch of 2 minute types of radio ditties though not really AM friendly but still with a pop rock formula. And in that way, that's what I appreciate from the British Invasion and other artists. Oldies radio has been popular, I might not have even been aware of the Tremeloes Here comes my baby but I might hear it a few years ago and then think, that's a good song. Some of us just like the pop flavor or the shorter tunes.

And all in all, these recent Dylan albums, time out of mind, etc. are pretty darn good, I think I prefer those more than Blood on the tracks and Desire.

Quote
thewatchman
The Stones have never produced anything better than the 12 Some Girls bonus tracks.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
thewatchman
The Stones have never produced anything better than the 12 Some Girls bonus tracks.

obviously. it was their little joke on the buying public to keep them out of circulation for 3 decades+. they're so funny.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
thewatchman
The Stones have never produced anything better than the 12 Some Girls bonus tracks.

obviously. it was their little joke on the buying public to keep them out of circulation for 3 decades+. they're so funny.

All good things come to he who waits. I like their country and blues stuff better than their rockers.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
thewatchman
The Stones have never produced anything better than the 12 Some Girls bonus tracks.

obviously. it was their little joke on the buying public to keep them out of circulation for 3 decades+. they're so funny.

All good things come to he who waits. I like their country and blues stuff better than their rockers.

you know it's only country and blues but you like it....

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
thewatchman
The Stones have never produced anything better than the 12 Some Girls bonus tracks.

obviously. it was their little joke on the buying public to keep them out of circulation for 3 decades+. they're so funny.

All good things come to he who waits. I like their country and blues stuff better than their rockers.

you know it's only country and blues but you like it....

I like what you have said here.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Spud
It must count for something that scores of the younger posters on this board were originally drawn in by the band's "modern era work" and performances.

they were? scores, you say?

Quote
thewatchman
The Stones have never produced anything better than the 12 Some Girls bonus tracks. This is the Rolling Stones at their absolute best.

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
Doxa

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
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 (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

Interesting points, Doxa. It's a bit depressing to think that the Stones (or at least Mick) may be more interested in the economic side of things than the artistic side. Perhaps Mick feels that the Stones artistic legacy is now "sealed" and that the band is now nothing more than a cash cow to be milked as much as possible.

His choices outside the Stones, as you point out, are decidedly NON-commercial. I mean, how much LESS commercial can you get than by producing films like "Enigma"? Maybe he feels that it is outside of the Stones where he still needs to establish a legacy, whereas within the Stones, that legacy has been established decades ago.

But as far as allowing the quality of the Stones' songwriting to diminish, I used to think that, for Keith at least, quality was "Job #1", and that they would never sacrifice one iota of artistic quality for the sake of money. Maybe Keith is too tired, too disengaged to fight that fight anymore.

Drew

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Spud
It must count for something that scores of the younger posters on this board were originally drawn in by the band's "modern era work" and performances.

they were? scores, you say?

Well about 7 years ago I think we tallied something like 4 scores.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Spud
It must count for something that scores of the younger posters on this board were originally drawn in by the band's "modern era work" and performances.

they were? scores, you say?

Well about 7 years ago I think we tallied something like 4 scores.

wasn't that tallied by the four fathers or something?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
thewatchman
The Stones have never produced anything better than the 12 Some Girls bonus tracks. This is the Rolling Stones at their absolute best.

You're really 'all in' when you like something aren't you?

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
thewatchman
The Stones have never produced anything better than the 12 Some Girls bonus tracks. This is the Rolling Stones at their absolute best.

You're really 'all in' when you like something aren't you?

I would say that is a fairly accurate statement.