For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
24FPS
The reason I find this relevant is that Mick is still writing great lyrics and still delivering good vocals. (I still don't get the mannered/nasal critics).
the best and most egregious examples are found on superheavy...it's almost like he's trying to be unlistenable...but there are plenty of lesser examples permeating stones albums dating back to undercover....
now listen to SH and tell me you still don't get it...
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
thewatchmanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Someone please point out the "Chuck Berry boogie" on A Bigger Bang.
Unless I missed it I didn't notice any excuse for Streets Of Love.
The ladies loved Streets Of Love.
Did you read what that is in context to? Doesn't look like it. Obviously.
How many different ways can you take shots at Streets Of Love? We get it.
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
StonesTod
aside from exile in '72, my favorite records from any given year the stones released one would NOT be from the stones...
Any given year? Why not any year? What about a particular given year?
Quote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Words is words. You can pile on a heap of 'em, but they won't make ABB a great album. The Stones have not made a decent album since Bill left, and even the couple before that were pretty spotty.
Bridges produced three of the greatest Stones songs ever.
If you say so. I still think it sounds like an album made by a commitee, not a band.
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
StoneageQuote
superrevvy
the stones didnt die in 1977. you did.
I'm with 71 Tele here. Their muse died in the late 70s. But there is nothing strange with that. In fact they managed to stay relevant for an unusually long time - almost two decades. Few band have managed that. Time waits for no one...
Music being "relevant" has always puzzled me. What have the Stones done that have made them "relevant"? It's art. Black people sitting on a porch in Mississippi singing blues and folk songs from their childhood, songs that have been passed on orally, is completely relevant to and with society compared to some of the stupid shit that comes out today that sounds close to nothing like music. Art is just a expression of the now, regardless of what it's about, sounds or looks like. Street Fighting Man was probably the last actual relevant song they had in terms of its reflection, which I don't think Mick exactly intended it to represent if I recall exactly, with the Viet Nam Conflict and all that was going on with the state of the police in the U.S. The timing of it with the Democratic Convention was just that. I highly doubt someone thought "Hey this would be good to incite a riot with - let's release it the week before the convention!" They'd already moved on when that single came out. It got banned from radio play because the lyrics incited violence? That's just convienent. Funny how people don't go off bombing shit now and for the past however many years it has been played on the radio.
How it, art in any form, ages has nothing to do with relevance. It certainly can have an influence on the time and one's experiences. Beatufiul is beautiful, good is good, bad is bad, etc. It's still strictly up to the individual, which can create nostalgia later on. THAT is a lasting impression. And I think it's safe to say one that worked, regardless of intent. Wild Horses is a great example of that.
Mick trending on whatever at the time of recording is already old by the time the record comes out is his ego battling 'relevance'. Respectable was...what? A really really fast blues. But it was supposed to be punk? Ha ha. Same with Lies. In the middle of all that 'keeping up with the times' they did Faraway Eyes,which is a thousand times better of a song. So much for being trendy.
Might As Well Get Juiced and Anybody Seen My Baby are two great examples of the 'trend' that was going on, especially the Dust Brothers being brought in to do what they do, whatever that is for a particular artist and album. What they did with Beck was just what Beck does - and it worked fantastically. Doing that with the Stones cries desperation to stay and be 'current'. Just listen to the plethora of awful horrible club 'remixes' "they" have released. They allowed a trend to influence what they were doing, which when compared to Chuck Berry etc was not anywhere near as good as a true "influence" like Chuck Berry and Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters. Yeah it's cool that they did something different, good for them, but it wasn't good and it never will be. It just doesn't work. Had they done something similar to that in 1974 when they were still defining and evoloving their sound it might be a different discussion. One could say that seemed to lead to them thinking they could play reggae. Well that didn't work either.
Aside from that, I like it when the Stones simply rock out, like they've done with Too Tight, Lowdown, It Won't Take Long, etc. I love Undercover, their last truly creative album as a band. Although the songs aren't exactly as high of songwriting quality of 2000 Man, Citadel, Parachute Woman, Monkey Man, Casino Boogie, Silver Train, If You Can't Rock Me and Crazy Mama etc they're still the Stones rocking out.
They don't write like they used to. There's no need for them to. They've done it. Hell, they didn't write in the 1970s like they did in the 1960s. They changed. IT changed. It wasn't then in 1975 as well as 1977 and 1985 and so on. No one in their right mind could have guessed that the band that released LET IT BLEED would release something bizarre sounding like SOME GIRLS when held up to The Golden Era.
Perhaps evolution gets confused with 'getting better'. It's not that, it's just change. Jumping on a trend is not exactly evolving. I know they'll never do what they did in the 1960s and first half of the 1970s. Love Is Strong and Rough Justice will never be held up to the likes of Get Off My Cloud or Jumpin' Jack Flash because...it's just not that. But it's still rockin', tongue in cheek and all the riffs too. Even when they're imitating themselves. Good? Great? It is what it is. If you like it you like it. There's definitely a division between an album being great for what it is and an album being great. I love UNDERCOVER but I know it's not as great as BEGGARS-EXILE nor do I even pretend it is. I think it's a great album though, on it's own. As bad as DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS are, as a whole, they still have some rockin' tunes on 'em. History will never confuse anything past TATTOO YOU for being a classic Stones album. Which is fine. Their classic albums are pretty damn good. Isn't that enough?
In the end that's what matters, for me anyway, but when they chase the tail of being current and music trends they pretty much sound like someone imitating something that was hip 6 months ago for three weeks at best. No one is going to label them as troupers, slogging through all the changes with sticking to what they do best...like AC/DC. But they may be hailed as troupers for...slogging through all the changes by attempting to change here and there. In the end they'll still be remembered mainly for BEGGARS-EXILE, SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU.
The Stones' biggest problem is "competeing" with themselves. There's simply too much to go back to and say 'Well this is nowhere near as good as that'. Of course it isn't - it's not that.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
24FPS
The reason I find this relevant is that Mick is still writing great lyrics and still delivering good vocals. (I still don't get the mannered/nasal critics).
the best and most egregious examples are found on superheavy...it's almost like he's trying to be unlistenable...but there are plenty of lesser examples permeating stones albums dating back to undercover....
now listen to SH and tell me you still don't get it...
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Words is words. You can pile on a heap of 'em, but they won't make ABB a great album. The Stones have not made a decent album since Bill left, and even the couple before that were pretty spotty.
Bridges produced three of the greatest Stones songs ever.
If you say so. I still think it sounds like an album made by a commitee, not a band.
Notice the three listed songs? Me either.
Quote
Stoneage
What happened in the mid 80s was that the band split up. Jagger's solo efforts were the start of it. They haven't worked as a group besides tours since then. And if it haven't been for the money they wouldn't have toured either. What we have is a dysfunctional band that only comes together every third or fourth year for a big moneygrabbing tour. They don't want to make new records; they do it to fulfill contracts. Basically Keith and Mick has drifted apart since the mid 80s.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
StonesTodQuote
24FPS
The reason I find this relevant is that Mick is still writing great lyrics and still delivering good vocals. (I still don't get the mannered/nasal critics).
the best and most egregious examples are found on superheavy...it's almost like he's trying to be unlistenable...but there are plenty of lesser examples permeating stones albums dating back to undercover....
now listen to SH and tell me you still don't get it...
can I play? I don't get it.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
treaclefingersQuote
StonesTodQuote
24FPS
The reason I find this relevant is that Mick is still writing great lyrics and still delivering good vocals. (I still don't get the mannered/nasal critics).
the best and most egregious examples are found on superheavy...it's almost like he's trying to be unlistenable...but there are plenty of lesser examples permeating stones albums dating back to undercover....
now listen to SH and tell me you still don't get it...
can I play? I don't get it.
yes, after 24fps...then you may play...if you've eaten all your peas.
Quote
seitanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Words is words. You can pile on a heap of 'em, but they won't make ABB a great album. The Stones have not made a decent album since Bill left, and even the couple before that were pretty spotty.
Bridges produced three of the greatest Stones songs ever.
If you say so. I still think it sounds like an album made by a commitee, not a band.
Notice the three listed songs? Me either.
I can name least one: How Could I Stop - it´s one of the best ballads they have ever done. If not the best.
- All Over me and Flip The Switch werent bad either... Voodoo Lounge had some good songs too..Mean Disposition and the production on Voodoo Lounge was better than on the 3 previous albums. And Bigger Bang was even better with production than Voodoo Lounge ...
Quote
seitanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
StoneageQuote
superrevvy
the stones didnt die in 1977. you did.
I'm with 71 Tele here. Their muse died in the late 70s. But there is nothing strange with that. In fact they managed to stay relevant for an unusually long time - almost two decades. Few band have managed that. Time waits for no one...
Music being "relevant" has always puzzled me. What have the Stones done that have made them "relevant"?
No relevant lyrics huh ? - Highwire on the Flashpoint album was relevant song about USA selling weapons to Saddam Hussein, Bigger Bang had a relevant song Sweet Neo Con -about president Bush invading another country for oil, - attitude on those songs reminded me of Street Fightin Man - I think Sweet Neo Con was rather boring jam musicially, but lyrics on that song were still interesting and relevant, and it's a proof that Stones still had some guts to sing important lyrics and they were ready to insult the right wingers -that´s the spirit of the sixties, - rebellion - it was still there.
It´s interesting that you say:
Had they done something similar to that in 1974 when they were still defining and evoloving their sound it might be a different discussion.
..it´s like.. if they had written these songs back in the seventies they would be now hits and classics, - in other words - the songs are good, but you dont like them cause they are "new" ..in other words - you are not listening to the songs as for what they are, you are lookin for bigger value, historical value - when in fact, -lot of music lovers just enjoy a good song when they hear it, without askin validation from some nostalgic historians. You could listen to the song "It´s Only Rock N Roll" and think about lyrics. It´s dedicated to silly critics who moan..Oh it´s not as good as they used to be..blaah. Great lyrics that kinda sums up this thread for me. I happen to like Stones reggae songs - nothing wrong there.
Oh, When you write: when they chase the tail of being current and music trendsthey pretty much sound like someone imitating something that was hip 6 months ago for three weeks at best. you sound like Keith Richards in his book Life when he was writing about Mick. I agree with you and Keith on that: - it´s stupid for Mick to try to be trendy.
They dont have to do that, cause they can still rock like the did in the old days.
Quote
seitanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Words is words. You can pile on a heap of 'em, but they won't make ABB a great album. The Stones have not made a decent album since Bill left, and even the couple before that were pretty spotty.
Bridges produced three of the greatest Stones songs ever.
If you say so. I still think it sounds like an album made by a commitee, not a band.
Notice the three listed songs? Me either.
I can name least one: How Could I Stop - it´s one of the best ballads they have ever done. If not the best.
- All Over me and Flip The Switch werent bad either... Voodoo Lounge had some good songs too..Mean Disposition and the production on Voodoo Lounge was better than on the 3 previous albums. And Bigger Bang was even better with production than Voodoo Lounge ...
Quote
StonesTodQuote
thewatchmanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
thewatchmanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Someone please point out the "Chuck Berry boogie" on A Bigger Bang.
Unless I missed it I didn't notice any excuse for Streets Of Love.
The ladies loved Streets Of Love.
Did you read what that is in context to? Doesn't look like it. Obviously.
How many different ways can you take shots at Streets Of Love? We get it.
if skippy is done, can i have a turn taking a few?
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Words is words. You can pile on a heap of 'em, but they won't make ABB a great album. The Stones have not made a decent album since Bill left, and even the couple before that were pretty spotty.
Bridges produced three of the greatest Stones songs ever.
If you say so. I still think it sounds like an album made by a commitee, not a band.
Notice the three listed songs? Me either.
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
thewatchmanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
thewatchmanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Someone please point out the "Chuck Berry boogie" on A Bigger Bang.
Unless I missed it I didn't notice any excuse for Streets Of Love.
The ladies loved Streets Of Love.
Did you read what that is in context to? Doesn't look like it. Obviously.
How many different ways can you take shots at Streets Of Love? We get it.
It's about the articles in the original post, ding dong.
Quote
Sighunt
...one man's meat is another man's poison. Over the last couple months, I listened to the Stones last four albums and I still prefer Steel Wheels over Voodoo, Bridges, and Bigger Bang. Aside from it's production values, as a whole, that album rocks. I'm in the minority here who thinks that Mixed Emotions is one of the best of the last great rockers the Stones recorded. I also like the experimentation with different sounds like Continental Drift and the jazz tinged Terrifying. And if you don't like those tunes there are two extremely great ballads Almost Hear You Sigh & Slipping Away to round out the album. IMHO, Steel Wheels is an album that is arguably under-rated. In fact, I think the Stones should have taken more risks on the Steel Wheels tour and thrown in more Steel Wheels numbers. Who knows, maybe had they showcased more tunes, its reputation might have been better rather than the criticisms it has received over the years...
Quote
StonesTod
their collective muse effectively died after the '77 sessions, imo. that ended an amazing run, too. since then it's all felt very forced and contrived...and almost all of their songs since then have owed to or borrowed heavily from something they recorded in the 70's...the idea wellspring dried up....
Quote
stones_serb
I am not very harsh on The Stones's latter day work.While Voodoo and bridges aren't scintillating masterpieces some people wish they were, they still have a sufficient number of outstanding songs to please any Stones aficionado(Out of control, Saint of me,Thru and Thru etc.).There's also a sizable amount of filler on these records but that is pretty expected from any band that late into their career.ABB on the other hand sounds very by numbers and generic.While it seems that the previous two efforts were given a lot thought regarding the production and arrangements, ABB simply sounds like The Stones jamming together and churning out riffs without paying much attention to coming up with anything remotely original.It does have redeeming qualities, but it is a rather atrocious effort for the band of their stature.Had any new band come up with such generic record, I doubt anyone would heap any praise on them the way, some critics did in regard to ABB. Voodoo and Bridges still contained some that Stones magic that made you fall in love with the band in the first place and I don't see these records as part of a negative trend as some folks make them out to be.Quite on the contrary, one could argue that they were a vast improvement over the previous efforts such as Dirty Work (an absolute nadir of their career) or Steel Wheels( which was a solid record marred by soulless production).
Also I have to add that the widespread belief that The Stones haven't released anything great since 1972 is utter nonsense perpetrated by the very people who tended to laud them to the point of religious fervor.Records such as Goats soup, Black and Blue and Some Girls simply can't stand their own when compared to the big four but that is a rather unfair comparison by all means take into account that there are only a dozen or so records released by anyone that are actually comparable.
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
71TeleQuote
thewatchmanQuote
71Tele
Words is words. You can pile on a heap of 'em, but they won't make ABB a great album. The Stones have not made a decent album since Bill left, and even the couple before that were pretty spotty.
Bridges produced three of the greatest Stones songs ever.
If you say so. I still think it sounds like an album made by a commitee, not a band.
Notice the three listed songs? Me either.
What the hell? How many friggen times do I have to list them? For the last time: Out Of Control, Saint Of Me, and "Thief"! You shouldn't have to be told! Three of the greatest songs ever! By those "in the know" that is.
Quote
24FPS
Steel Wheels was a damn fine album. Voodoo Lounge came when they were vulnerable and thought they needed to make a retro album. Bridges to Babylon does not have the feeling that Keith and Mick were working together. It sounds like Mick was trying to move into the present and Keith didn't have any new ideas. A Bigger Bang had some moments, but it's not a very pleasing mix.
I'm beginning to see the point of some who claim they just don't give a damn about dedicating themselves to making a good album. If they are secretly making an album as we speak, it's the biggest secret on the planet. If Mick & Keith are going to get together for a week to write, and then record for a couple, it will be the same slapdash results we've been getting. It's too bad. I'm sure they have some amazing emotions at this point in their lives that might go unexpressed. Mick can write all the amazing lyrice he wants, but he has to be surrounded by great music.
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
seitanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
StoneageQuote
superrevvy
the stones didnt die in 1977. you did.
I'm with 71 Tele here. Their muse died in the late 70s. But there is nothing strange with that. In fact they managed to stay relevant for an unusually long time - almost two decades. Few band have managed that. Time waits for no one...
Music being "relevant" has always puzzled me. What have the Stones done that have made them "relevant"?
No relevant lyrics huh ? - Highwire on the Flashpoint album was relevant song about USA selling weapons to Saddam Hussein, Bigger Bang had a relevant song Sweet Neo Con -about president Bush invading another country for oil, - attitude on those songs reminded me of Street Fightin Man - I think Sweet Neo Con was rather boring jam musicially, but lyrics on that song were still interesting and relevant, and it's a proof that Stones still had some guts to sing important lyrics and they were ready to insult the right wingers -that´s the spirit of the sixties, - rebellion - it was still there.
It´s interesting that you say:
Had they done something similar to that in 1974 when they were still defining and evoloving their sound it might be a different discussion.
..it´s like.. if they had written these songs back in the seventies they would be now hits and classics, - in other words - the songs are good, but you dont like them cause they are "new" ..in other words - you are not listening to the songs as for what they are, you are lookin for bigger value, historical value - when in fact, -lot of music lovers just enjoy a good song when they hear it, without askin validation from some nostalgic historians. You could listen to the song "It´s Only Rock N Roll" and think about lyrics. It´s dedicated to silly critics who moan..Oh it´s not as good as they used to be..blaah. Great lyrics that kinda sums up this thread for me. I happen to like Stones reggae songs - nothing wrong there.
Oh, When you write: when they chase the tail of being current and music trendsthey pretty much sound like someone imitating something that was hip 6 months ago for three weeks at best. you sound like Keith Richards in his book Life when he was writing about Mick. I agree with you and Keith on that: - it´s stupid for Mick to try to be trendy.
They dont have to do that, cause they can still rock like the did in the old days.
Funny how you think releasing a song about a "war" a year after the "war" happened is relevance. How Sweet Neo Con reminds you of Street Fighting Man is beyond me. They couldn't be more different if they wanted to. It's convenient to say it's "like" SFM because of the relation of the subject matter but that's just apples and oranges. I've never been under any impression that The Rolling Stones were concerned with "the spirit of the sixties - rebellion" since...I dunno. Was Some Girls with the lyrics about black girls rebellious? I don't think so. To me it was just a comment based on Mick's experiences.
Dangerous Beauty is commentary about the actions of what one person did during W's "war". Yet somehow not one person seemed to take notice. It may as well of been about Charles Whitman. It's also a much better song than Sweet Neo Con but no one figured that out either.
You totally missed my point about the Stones doing something trendy now compared to doing something inventive in 1974 (Fingerprint File is a great example). It's nothing to do with being "new" nor the quality of the songs - Might As Well Get Juiced, regardless of the Dust Brothers, is still a horrible song. And it certainly has nothing to do with nostalgia. It's strictly about how bad the results of being trendy are. Saint Of Me is a pretty damn good song, regardless of the production.
The lyrics in It's Only Rock'N'Roll are funny about their critics. Mick pays attention afterall. No matter - it's still a wobbly song. It's a by-the-numbers tune that became a minor hit for 'em and also became somewhat of an anthem for the Stones. Which is perfect for them back then. Now it's a tagline for NBC Dateline or the evening news with whoever. So it goes.
I was not attempting to sound like Keith in his book squawking about Mick being trendy (I read the book but I don't really recall it - perhaps it's blended in with all the other ranting he's done over the years). That's coincidence. Do you think I like it when they're trendy and the song works, like Saint Of Me, but they shouldn't be trendy when the song sucks, like Juiced? Nahhh. There's no bias with liking a band. I prefer the live version of Saint Of Me from No Security over the LP version. They played it live just fine. I don't think they really needed to do what they did on the LP version, they could've done that for real anyway so why bother? Perhaps what Keith meant to say was "Is it good? If a song is good it's a good song." The producers really have no control over that. Might As Well Get Juiced is lame period.
That's what a lot of it came down to. They did what they did with the Dust Brothers and it was pointless anyway. And they (except Mick) didn't like it. Lucky us, we got it on their second newest album forever.
You like the Stones doing reggae, the one song they did, I think it stinks. It certainly fits on BLACK AND BLUE with the whole hazed out vibe going on with that record but it's still bad. It's entertaining though. it makes me laugh. But it's not good reggae, it's bad. C-side bad. It's amazing it even made the album. There you go.