Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous123456789Next
Current Page: 3 of 9
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 9, 2012 19:38

aside from exile in '72, my favorite records from any given year the stones released one would NOT be from the stones...

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: NoCode0680 ()
Date: February 9, 2012 19:39

Quote
superrevvy

here's the best defense of post-golden-age stones.

i've made this challenge before and had zero takers.

take any stones album from goat's head to bang and compare it to any other
commercially successful album from the same year

i did it. i went to billboard's site and compared the top 100 albums of
any of those years against the stones album from the same year and i came
up with zero albums that at this time i rate higher or listen to
more.

while i'm sure there will be peeps on this board that have a few albums here
and there that they still rate higher than the stones release from the same year,
i doubt seriously that there's very many or very much consensus on what those
superior records might be.

the stones rule! right up to 2006.

I went to make a list, but it was LOOOONNNG. It is all opinion of course, but I think here's one most people would agree on, unless they've had a little too much of the Stones Kool-Aid

1973: Dark Side Of The Moon > Goats Head Soup

And I say that as somebody who really enjoys Goats Head Soup. The only years I had no albums I would take over the Stones album were '74, '78 (though a lot of honorable mentions), '81 (not much going on that I consider good), and 2005 (I have no clue what was happening in music that year). The 90's were a particularly good time for music, and 1994 was a stand out year. Pearl Jam's "Vitalogy", "The Downward Spiral" by Nine Inch Nails and Weezer's debut album are a couple of standouts, but many more. Good year for rock. '97 was pretty good, and while I absolutely love BTB, there are still some albums I have to admit were probably better.

There are plenty of albums from those years that while not my cup of tea, the general public would probably take over the Stones. U2, for example released albums against the Stones several years for instance. I think "War" head to head with "Undercover" would probably always take the prize.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 9, 2012 19:39

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
superrevvy
the biggest clue is these people who cannot name any popular music they love
that is not really old AND that need to get on the case of those who can.

pure jealousy.

if they were happy with the music they supposedly still love, they wouldnt
feel the need to trash the music that others love. very sad people.

I'm not sure your analysis is entirely correct.

Could easily be, very old people, or , very lazy people, or, very busy people.

could be very tall people....short people got no reason to live, as we know....

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 9, 2012 19:53

Quote
Stoneage
Quote
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.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: stonesdan60 ()
Date: February 9, 2012 20:04


I´m a big fan - and there´s nothing wrong with Bigger Bang - But I know why you dont like it - I think there´s lot of people who discovered the Stones back in the day (be it 60´s + or 70´s + or 80´s - and they are still on a constant nostalgia trip - and still holding on to their youths and not able to realize that Rollings Stones music hasnt really changed that much over the years.) Bigger Bang has more energy in production wise than Steel Wheels, Between The Buttons or Undercover put together...

Most of the Stones audience are not able to say if Stones are important in recent years or not - cause they only listen to music from the past - teenage years, sixties and seventies. If you live in the past and compare everything Stones do with the past - and dont follow whats going on these days with other bands - youre full of crap. Just a nostalgia for you, huh ? ...

[/quote]

Good points. Many people do get hung up on what hits them first and don't give music a chance if their favorite band changes over the years and by doing so, I feel they miss out on a lot of great music. Consider the classic status of Exile On Main Street and the "big four" that started with Beggar's Banquet. I have an older brother who became enamored with the Stones when they first came out. That's the sound he gets off on. In his opinion their last album of worth was Aftermath. He thinks Exile is a load of garbage. I don't begrudge anyone their taste or opinion but I feel my brother has missed so much great music by leaving the Stones behind with Aftermath. I agree with the notion that the Stones wrote their very best and most vital songs in the sixties and early seventies...and then of course Some Girls. But for me there's more to music than just the songs themselves. It's the style, performance and unique sound that certain people make that gets me. I feel the Stones have continued to write very good songs all along, even if they aren't as GREAT as JJF, GS, SFTD, YCAGWYW, etc. But there's something about the Stones sound and style that still moves me and makes me feel good. It's like a drug. Whenever I hear that unique groove that happens when Keith and Charlie get into it (and yes I know there are songs Charlie didn't play on), I get great pleasure from it, even if the songs aren't up to their golden age par. It just does it for me. Thus, I still like what they do. It makes me happy and that's all I care about. No other band creates a groove that moves me like the Stones. Some people get off on cocaine. They don't care if it's the same kind of cocaine they've been getting for ages. It makes them happy. The Stones are my aural cocaine. I like it and am glad they've continued to supply my aural drug of choice for all these years. I'm sure this sounds like a load of crap to some people, but I also know that there are quite a few people who will get what I'm saying....

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 9, 2012 20:06

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
In the end they'll still be remembered mainly for BEGGARS-EXILE, SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU.

if you'd be so kind as to amend this to include the great 60's singles that put them on the map in the first place, i'd be happy to agree with your observation.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: vermontoffender ()
Date: February 9, 2012 20:11

Up and Down With The Rolling Stones Studio Work Since 1968 with vermontoffender:

Beggars through Exile- Yes, amazing. Incredible. Certainly an astonishingly consistent achievement especially given the fact that the band's personnel changed about halfway through the run.

Goat's Head Soup- Nope. Never liked it. Never gets played in my house. If one of my kids wants to hear 100 Years Ago, I make him sit outside in an igloo, naked. With his iPod and headphones, though, so he can listen to why he's naked in an igloo.

IORR- Better than GHS, but still not a fave. Luxury and Fingerprint File save it. The title track is a "classic"; meaning I only listen to it on the radio.

Black and Blue: Now we're talking. Filth and funk and (finally) some Ronnie. Thank Christ.

Some Girls- Great, great, great. Amazing. One of the things that is so odd about the '78 Stones is that the popularity of Miss You had a lot to do with it's Disco-esque beat. (I don't think it's Disco per se, but...whatever) And the popularity of Miss You was the gateway to the popularity of the album, which is crazy because the album and tour are punk inspired and punk, in a lot of ways, killed Disco. The Stones are a walking, rocking, dichotomy; never more so than in '78.

Emotional Rescue- I love this album. Saucy and stupid and cruel and insulting and rocking. I don't look at it as "Some Girls lite", I look at it as a kick ass album.

Tattoo You- Amazing, amazing, stuff. The "older" tracks on the album benefit from whatever the hell Jagger and the rest of the band did to them in the interim. The laziness and bloat of GHS and IORR have been replaced by taste and feel and, dare I say it, maturity. And the rockers on the album kick ass. Also, Slave is a goddamn masterpiece.

Undercover- A fine, fine, album. Nasty and raunchy and violent and confident. Any album where the big "dance track" is a song entailing murder and decapitation is alright with me. Filthy.

Dirty Work- Low point. Awful. Horrible songs made even thinner by pathetic production. Finding out Jagger came in and did his bits in (virtually) one take, was not surprising.

Steel Wheels- Low(est) point. A calculated, slick, piece of nonsense that perfectly predicted the ensuing "family friendly" tour.

Voodoo Lounge- A huge step in the right direction. Waaaayyyyy too long, but it holds up pretty well if you skip a few tracks.

Bridges to Babylon- Continuing the climb out of the DW/SW morass; some great tunes and amazing performances. How Can i Stop is a goddamn miracle.

A Bigger Bang- Some fine songs and performances (especially from Charlie). Again, waaayyyy too long, but boiling it down to 11 songs does wonders. Good, good, stuff.

So, yeah. That's basically how I see the Stones. '68-'72 and '76-'83 are amazing runs. '73-'74 and '86-'89 are my least favorite periods. VL-ABB have some great moments, but the consistency isn't there.

Basically, the albums that get the kids thrown naked and shivering into the igloo in the backyard are:

GHS, DW, and SW.

(Wow....so this is one of the effects of having the flu that no one mentions; writing odd. lengthy, missives on IORR. There has got to be a pill for that.)

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: mgguy ()
Date: February 9, 2012 20:38

Though somewhat redundant and repetitive, an interestsing thread nonetheless. I do think if the handful of critical thinkers here were forced from their comfortable, cyber anonymity and actually had some real-face conversation, they may well find themselves far more like minded than supposed.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 9, 2012 20:49

Quote
mgguy
Though somewhat redundant and repetitive, an interestsing thread nonetheless. I do think if the handful of critical thinkers here were forced from their comfortable, cyber anonymity and actually had some real-face conversation, they may well find themselves far more like minded than supposed.

really? i'm not even like-minded with 12 of my other iorr aliases....

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: MrMonte ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:04

This is a great thread. I think a lot - way too much - about latter day Stones. I think it's because my Stones life began with Love You Live and everything else was retro. It's a given that the work with Mick Taylor is masterful. It's a given that the work with Brian Jones was groundbreaking and it all tellls a great, great story. But it's very, very wrong to assume, as sometimes people do, that the story ended there.

In my mind, the story really gets interesting in the post- Mick Taylor years, where the band struggled with identity, finding the best way to integrate Ronnie, internal conflicts and politics, freebasing, smack and alcohol addiction, a 50 year old bassist chasing jailbait, solo stuff, the lure of the mega-tours,balancing "integrity" with "calculation" or however you want to put it, finding ways to compensate for "evolving" skills, etc. etc., etc. I just find the latter day saga extremely interesting and find books like "According to the Rolling Stones" interesting reads that I go back to over and over. It's amazing how honest they are about things in that book...

But I digress. My main point is that it's a great soap opera and I hope it keeps going at least for another year or two. As for ABB, it is a good album but yes, like VL, too long. I made a playlist for VL consisting of 9 songs and it's perfect. I think I've done the same for ABB, or at least I keep meaning to.

And as for Dirty Work? It's interesting to see how it's so uniformly lambasted. In fact, I think it's a great album! I've said this for years and I'm finally going to put my money where my mouth is; I'm just completing a lengthy essay on it for my blog and I'll let you guys know when it's posted. Probably nothing new in it for you guys, but at least you'll (possibly) find it of interest. At the very least, it should spark some comments - I hope so at least!

Anyway, I'm glad this post is here. there's too much good music since SG or Tattoo You to just dismiss - even if it's inconsistent to say the least.

MrMonte

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: windmelody ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:05

All latter day albums have very good moments, but of course they are not as good as the Stones' classics. R'n'r has its limitations, and I do not know many classics from 89-2005. Only Dylan and the early Oasis did some great Blues or R'n'R albums in that time. One has to say that the latter day Stones played many terrific concerts.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: thewatchman ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:20

Quote
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.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: thewatchman ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:22

Quote
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.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: thewatchman ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:24

Quote
stonesdan60
Quote
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.

Oh well, we're all entitled to our opinions and taste is subjective. For me, ABB is their best album since Some Girls and I enjoy the hell out of it.

I will take the Some Girls bonus tracks over Some Girls and ABB any day of the week.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: GetYerAngie ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:25

Quote
stonesdan60
I've come to accept the fact that there are many who think the Stones haven't made a great album since Exile On Main Street, or Some Girls, etc. but also know there are some of us who don't see it that way. I just came across a great review of A Bigger Bang, which I couldn't agree with more. For the hell of it, here it is:

[www.timeisonourside.com]

Eight years separate 2005's A Bigger Bang, the Rolling Stones' 24th album of original material, from its 1997 predecessor, Bridges to Babylon, the longest stretch of time between Stones albums in history, but unlike the three-year gap between 1986's Dirty Work and 1989's Steel Wheels, the band never really went away. They toured steadily, not just behind Bridges but behind the career-spanning 2002 compilation Forty Licks... (A) bigger surprise is that A Bigger Bang finds that reinvigorated band carrying its latter-day renaissance into the studio, turning in a sinewy, confident, satisfying album that's the band's best in years... (T)here is a big difference between this album and 1994's Voodoo Lounge. That album was deliberately classicist, touching on all of the signatures of classic mid-period, late-'60s/early-'70s Stones - reviving the folk, country, and straight blues that balanced their trademark rockers - and while it was often successful, it very much sounded like the Stones trying to be the Stones. What distinguishes A Bigger Bang is that it captures the Stones simply being the Stones, playing without guest stars, not trying to have a hit, not trying to adopt the production style of the day, not doing anything but lying back and playing. Far from sounding like a lazy affair, the album rocks really hard, tearing out of the gate with Rough Justice, the toughest, sleaziest, and flat-out best song Jagger and Richards have come up with in years. It's not a red herring, either - She Saw Me Coming, Look What the Cat Dragged In, and the terrific Oh No Not You Again, which finds Mick spitting out lyrics with venom and zeal, are equally as hard and exciting... A Bigger Bang doesn't succeed simply because the Stones are great musicians, it also works because this is a strong set of Jagger-Richards originals - naturally, the songs don't rival their standards from the '60s and '70s, but the best songs here more than hold their own with the best of their post-Exile work, and there are more good songs here than on any Stones album since Some Girls.

This may not be a startling comeback along the lines of Bob Dylan's Love and Theft, but that's fine, because over the last three decades the Stones haven't been about surprises: they've been about reliability. The problem is, they haven't always lived up to their promises, or when they did deliver the goods, it was sporadic and unpredictable. And that's what's unexpected about A Bigger Bang: they finally hold up their end of the bargain, delivering a strong, engaging, cohesive Rolling Stones album that finds everybody in prime form. Keith is loose and limber, Charlie is tight and controlled, Ronnie lays down some thrilling, greasy slide guitar, and Mick is having a grand time, making dirty jokes, baiting neo-cons, and sounding more committed to the Stones than he has in years. Best of all, this is a record where the band acknowledges its age and doesn't make a big deal about it: they're not in denial, trying to act like a younger band, they've simply accepted what they do best and go about doing it as if it's no big deal. But that's what makes A Bigger Bang a big deal: it's the Stones back in fighting form for the first time in years, and they have both the strength and the stamina to make the excellent latter-day effort everybody's been waiting for all these years. 4/5

- Stephen Thomas Erlewine, All Music Guide, September 2005

Let's just get this out of the way: A Bigger Bang isn't a good Rolling Stones album considering their age. It isn't a good Rolling Stones album compared to their recent work. No, A Bigger Bang is just a straight-up, damn fine Rolling Stones album, with no qualifiers or apologies necessary for the first time in a few decades... Whether fueled by their notorious competitive camaraderie or inspired by their oldest mate's brush with mortality, the results sound like a genuine band effort - loose, scrappy and alive. A Bigger Bang recalls the best things about rough, underrated Stones albums like Dirty Work or Emotional Rescue, though it's also impressively consistent. The key here comes from surrendering to the groove. Most of the tracks are built around the incomparable spark that's lit when Keith's guitar and Charlie's drums lock into a rhythm. There's never been another team that can drive a band quite like these two, but on their post-Seventies work that magic has usually been buried in the mix. On hard-charging songs like It Won't Take Long or the rave-up single Rough Justice, the Stones reassert themselves as the World's Greatest Rock & Roll Band, and not just as the Greatest Show on Earth.

Mick and Keith have always said they want to grow old like the bluesmen they idolize, and on Bang they finally figure out how: The album revels in the Chuck Berry boogie and classic R&B pulse that's always been their lifeblood. The latter-day Glimmer Twins have often felt the need to coat their songs with layers of winking irony or studio gloss. Here, the dance-floor strut Rain Fall Down and the soul ballad Laugh, I Nearly Died are powerful because they're played straight, never turning cartoonish or mannered. Jagger's voice throughout is a knockout, deeper and more forceful than seems possible after forty-plus years of rocking the mike. The subject matter on A Bigger Bang, though, is thankfully a bit less mature. The album mostly sticks to familiar, nasty Stones territory: being heartbroken and breaking hearts, the evils that women (and, sometimes, men) do... Of course a disc that clocks in at sixty-four minutes (just two minutes less than Exile on Main Street) is too long. In their defense, there isn't a single track that's a real lemon... A Bigger Bang may not be a perception-shattering comeback like Bob Dylan's Time Out of Mind/Love and Theft combo, but by returning to their roots and embracing their age, the Rolling Stones have come up with an album that's a worthy successor to their masterworks. Jagger and Richards are still standing - grumpy old men, full of piss and vinegar, spite and blues chords, and they wear it well. 4.5/5

- Alan Light, Rolling Stone, September 2005

Except for the positive remarks about Bob Dylans surprisingly boring follow-up to his surprisingly great Time Out Of Mind I quite agree these two reviews, especially Alan Light. VL, BTB and ABB might be too long, but you could make a great and strong compilation of these three latterday efforts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-09 21:29 by GetYerAngie.

Re: I LOVE THE STONES
Posted by: thewatchman ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:28

Quote
Rolling Hansie
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
Rolling Hansie
You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like. Never ever allow anybody to spoil your fun.

if someone's opinion that differs from your own spoils your fun, then you really didn't have much conviction in the first place and deserve to have your fun spoiled.

As I said before: You don't need other people's opinions to like what you like

I have always found peoples opinions to be somewhat overrated, except for yours and mine of course!smoking smiley

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:37

Can you really expect to make great records if you spend, maybe, twelve weeks together in a studio during a period of thirty years?

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 9, 2012 21:44

Quote
StonesTod
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
In the end they'll still be remembered mainly for BEGGARS-EXILE, SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU.

if you'd be so kind as to amend this to include the great 60's singles that put them on the map in the first place, i'd be happy to agree with your observation.

Good point, although I was strictly talking about their 'classic' albums. I laughed when I read way back before the internet that the only album JJF and HTW could be found on was THROUGH THE PAST DARKLY, which caught me off guard at first because I had HOT ROCKS. Those UK BIG HITS compilations are spectualar albums of their singles.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 9, 2012 21:45

Quote
thewatchman
Quote
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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-09 21:45 by WeLoveToPlayTheBlues.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: thewatchman ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:52

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
thewatchman
Quote
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.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:53

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
StonesTod
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
In the end they'll still be remembered mainly for BEGGARS-EXILE, SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU.

if you'd be so kind as to amend this to include the great 60's singles that put them on the map in the first place, i'd be happy to agree with your observation.

Good point, although I was strictly talking about their 'classic' albums. I laughed when I read way back before the internet that the only album JJF and HTW could be found on was THROUGH THE PAST DARKLY, which caught me off guard at first because I had HOT ROCKS. Those UK BIG HITS compilations are spectualar albums of their singles.

yep - you take hot rocks and the six albums you cite and that's your rolling stones for what all future generations need to know...the rest are footnotes...

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 9, 2012 21:54

Quote
thewatchman
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
thewatchman
Quote
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?

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:00

Quote
StonesTod
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
superrevvy
the biggest clue is these people who cannot name any popular music they love
that is not really old AND that need to get on the case of those who can.

pure jealousy.

if they were happy with the music they supposedly still love, they wouldnt
feel the need to trash the music that others love. very sad people.

I'm not sure your analysis is entirely correct.

Could easily be, very old people, or , very lazy people, or, very busy people.

could be very tall people....short people got no reason to live, as we know....

DAMN!

missed that.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:23

Quote
seitan
Quote
StonesTod
my hunch is that many fans, because they are big fans, want to like the latter-era albums and find themselves telling themselves they like them. i stopped doing that years ago and it's liberating...abb stinks...and it's ok to say that and still love the band. life's too short and there's too much music worth my attention to waste trying to like something that stinks.

WHAAT ??

I´m a big fan - and there´s nothing wrong with Bigger Bang - But I know why you dont like it - I think there´s lot of people who discovered the Stones back in the day (be it 60´s + or 70´s + or 80´s - and they are still on a constant nostalgia trip - and still holding on to their youths and not able to realize that Rollings Stones music hasnt really changed that much over the years.) Bigger Bang has more energy in production wise than Steel Wheels, Between The Buttons or Undercover put together...

Most of the Stones audience are not able to say if Stones are important in recent years or not - cause they only listen to music from the past - teenage years, sixties and seventies. If you live in the past and compare everything Stones do with the past - and dont follow whats going on these days with other bands - youre full of crap. Just a nostalgia for you, huh ?

So there. Dont tell me that I´m fooling myself when it comes to music - I have no problem saying that Led Zeppelin is the greatest cover band that ever lived - and nothing more, cause everything they ever did was a rip off, - Page and Plant are not songwriters - they dont write - they steal.
And when it comes to Stones - I agree with you on life being too short and there's too much music worth our attention to live in the past...like most Stones fans do. I can move on with the band if they keep releasing good songs, that´s why most of you Taylorits are ...

I can openly admit that Mick Taylors career after the Stones is nothing but a pathetic joke, He is overrated as a guitarist - cause his solo career sucks. Every Jagger solo album stinks, some of Charlies boogie woogie projects are boring as hell, Bill Wyman has written only one good song in his entire life and even that was a joke (- Pussy ) The best thing Keith has done in the recent years is Wingless Angels - hands down

- Keith seems to be the only one in the band who has balls to try out new things and come up with interesting results. Wingless Angels is amazing. Lot of rude marks that Keith made in his book about Mick were true, - starting with Micks pretentious stage moves and desperate attemps at being commercial. Superheavy ..oh please, it´s so horrible.. dont get me started on that...that speaks for itself and kinda proofs that Keith was right about Mick in that book of his.

Same old tired argument that if one dares to make qualitative judgments about the Stones' later work, one must be on a "nostalgia trip", rather than simply being discerning (as well as honest). Here's a test for all of you who think ABB and Bridges are as good as Exile and Some Girls: How many songs from these fantastic records do the Stones themselves perform as part of their set compared to their work up through Tattoo You? Answer: Almost none. Or at least only a token amount. Which means either that the Stones themselves are not confident about this material, or that it has not worn as well as their earlier material with their audience. Probably both.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:27

I'm currently reading 'Preacher of the Blues' about Willie Dixon. He states, "The thing most people don't realize about recording artists is the music itself is the background that makes the artist sound good."

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). But the music surrounding him is really slipshod now. We know the bass has been supbar (for the most part) on recordings since Bill left. And to me they're recording Charlie's drum all crash-bam. And I think as others have pointed out, they're just not spending any time in the studio. Keith used to labor over his guitar tracks, but no longer.

Listen to something like Plundered My Soul. They're new lyrics and vocals, but it's the classic Stones backing track ala Wyman/Watts, and some new filigrees from Mick Taylor, that make the song. Mick Jagger only sounds as good as the band that backs him. If they try to shortchange the instrumentation, as they've done, then the overall sound suffers. All I know is that I rarely have any pull to listen to ABB, BTB, and only a couple tracks on Voodoo Lounge. Unless the band takes the time and effort to make another great album, we'll simply never see another one. Which will make dipping into the past all that more attractive.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:27

tele like it is

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:28

Quote
More Hot Rocks
Quote
stonesdan60
Quote
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.

Oh well, we're all entitled to our opinions and taste is subjective. For me, ABB is their best album since Some Girls and I enjoy the hell out of it.

I agree.

Nobody (certainly not me) said someone shouldn't enjoy whatever the hell they like. But when someone makes and argument that these last few Stones records are on a qualitative par with their 1960s and (most) 1970s work, I think it's a weak argument and I have said why. But go ahead and enjoy it.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:30

Quote
thewatchman
Quote
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.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:31

Quote
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...

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 9, 2012 23:33

Quote
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?

Goto Page: Previous123456789Next
Current Page: 3 of 9


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 350
Record Number of Users: 161 on September 12, 2017 22:55
Record Number of Guests: 3948 on December 7, 2015 15:07

Previous page Next page First page IORR home