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: 4 of 9
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:34

Quote
StonesTod
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...

Just listen to "Following The River". The contrast with the earlier Exile tracks in Mick's approach is quite jarring.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 9, 2012 23:35

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.

It's about the articles in the original post, ding dong.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:35

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
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?

you give me a particular year or a given year and i'll give you a particularly fave album.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 9, 2012 23:37

Quote
71Tele
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.

Notice the three listed songs? Me either.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: seitan ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:48

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
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.

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.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 9, 2012 23:53

At the end of a day to be successful a song needs to work as a song. Doesn't matter if it's about politics or pussy (sorry) the song must work. "Sweet Neo Con" might have been "relevant" at the time. But a good song? Not really.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-10 00:20 by 71Tele.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: February 10, 2012 00:00

Quote
StonesTod
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...

can I play? I don't get it.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Stoneage ()
Date: February 10, 2012 00:06

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.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: seitan ()
Date: February 10, 2012 00:07

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
71Tele
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.

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 ...

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: seitan ()
Date: February 10, 2012 00:10

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.

Maybe. Good Point.
But I dont have a probleam with that - it´s their personal private issue, anyway. I like Voodoo Lounge and Bigger Bang - and I´m hoping for more. (Stripped was one of their best live albums ever).

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: buttons67 ()
Date: February 10, 2012 02:04

my own opinion is that some people overrate ABB and some underrate it.

i think it has some good stuff on it.

back of my hand
infamy
laugh i nearly died
rough justice
rainfall down
this place is empty
biggest mistake

are a good mix of rock, blues and soul.


the downside is the album has too much filler which seems to be a habbit with post exile albums but if you were to judge each song on its own merits and not as some side issue with others it becomes clear the stones have made many great and good songs since exile, also they have made some average to basic crap stuff too.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 10, 2012 02:09

Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
StonesTod
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...

can I play? I don't get it.

yes, after 24fps...then you may play...if you've eaten all your peas.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: February 10, 2012 02:19

Quote
StonesTod
Quote
treaclefingers
Quote
StonesTod
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...

can I play? I don't get it.

yes, after 24fps...then you may play...if you've eaten all your peas.

Thank you...all I ask for is an orderly run message board.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 10, 2012 02:28

Quote
seitan
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
71Tele
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.

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 ...

You unwittingly prove my point: "Weren't bad" and "good" are a far cry from "phenomenal", "fantastic", and "great" - which is how I would characterize the vast majority of their work through Some Girls. It's not that everything since that is terrible, it's that the standard went down significantly, and seemingly, permanently.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 10, 2012 02:41

Quote
seitan
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
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"?

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.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Date: February 10, 2012 02:45

Quote
seitan
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
71Tele
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.

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 ...

Hey seitan, that wasn't - it's about the person who said it! They didn't list the three songs! I do think How Can I Stop is one of their best tunes ever. You Don't Have To Mean It is brilliant. For some reason Keith's songs on that record really ring out. A rarity, of course.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: backstreetboy1 ()
Date: February 10, 2012 03:40

agree 100 percent,damn good record.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: stones_serb ()
Date: February 10, 2012 04:42

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-10 04:42 by stones_serb.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: thewatchman ()
Date: February 10, 2012 05:06

Quote
StonesTod
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?

Are you kidding? Skippy is never done. Always has to have the last word. I can dig it.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: thewatchman ()
Date: February 10, 2012 05:17

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
71Tele
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.

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.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: thewatchman ()
Date: February 10, 2012 05:22

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
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.

It's about the articles in the original post, ding dong.

It's called karma. What goes around, comes around. Doesn't mean I don't love ya Skippy.smiling smiley

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Sighunt ()
Date: February 10, 2012 06:19

...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...

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 71Tele ()
Date: February 10, 2012 06:52

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...

I do agree with you that SW has perhaps been overlooked. I also agree that the material was stronger on that record than the next three studio efforts - by far. Also, it was the last record with Bill Wyman, and that's enough to recommend it right there.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Edward Twining ()
Date: February 10, 2012 08:40

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....

Yes, i think you are spot on there, StonesTod.

In terms of the release dates, TATTOO YOU in 1981, was the last thing the Stones released that demonstrated their muse pretty much still intact, but as we know, many of those songs orginate from much earlier sessions. The SOME GIRLS sessions from 1977 was the last time the Stones demonstrated their muse in a pretty potent sense, where it was displayed within a strong level of consistency. My belief is that pretty soon after, for whatever reason, the magic began to evaporate. There were occasional songs on EMOTIONAL RESCUE that i quite like, yet there is also a very uneven quality to the album as a whole, a sort of sketchy underdeveloped sense in terms of a number of those songs, and their arrangements. The plus side is that the Stones were still willing to experiment with new sounds. There is a contemporary feel to the album, and an almost quirkiness, which gives EMOTIONAL RESCUE very much a unique identity of its own, alongside the fact that the songs in a number of cases also tend to ring that little bit hollow, after a few listens.

Post TATTOO YOU, the Stones really do begin to sound rather more contrived. Every album released post TATTOO YOU tends to lack a strong sense of conviction, almost as though the Stones were carrying on simply because they could think of nothing better to do. Some fans do tend to like those post TATTOO YOU albums a little more than others, and while there are very occasional reminders, maybe, of what Stones once were in their prime, nothing ever truly recaptures the magic. The songs and their arrangements generally tend to be fairly insubstantial, and are perhaps not very well conceived. Yes, some of those songs may initially actually sound not bad, but given a few listens, invariably they fall flat, because they lack substance. The Stones really are just role playing what they were like in their prime, without any real depth, or inspiration. They know as a nostalgia act they can attract open cheque books wherever they travel. However, in reality, it's so hard to believe those brilliant youngsters of their youth, are really genuinely the same people, they have fallen so very far from their previous greatness.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: Sipuncula ()
Date: February 10, 2012 08:43

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.

I was all worked up about putting in my two cents to this incredibly on-topic thread, but it had already grown too big and too fast, and there was too much to read and digest, but then I saw that it's been done for me.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: 24FPS ()
Date: February 10, 2012 09:15

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.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: StonesTod ()
Date: February 10, 2012 14:18

Quote
thewatchman
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
71Tele
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.

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.

nobody told me. nobody ever tells me.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: IrelandCalling4 ()
Date: February 10, 2012 16:20

So many valid points and some intriguing posts, both for and against,

In relation to a poster above mentioning 'Steel Wheels' - I do agree, production is pretty soulless and bland, but even that cannot hide the genuinely great tracks on there. "..Wheels" has an amount of filler, but when it clicks, it is that old Stones magic.

The two ballads, in my opinion, are two of the Stones' greatest and would grace any album from their past with their presence,. "Almost Hear You Sigh" & "Slipping Away" are terrific, wonderful pieces.

'Terrifying' is another, and it simply cooks, a superior funk/groove track with some wonderful percussion. 'Continental Drift' another.

I'd even add 'Break the Spell' - the vocal effects, the evocative lyrics, and most of all, Mick's harmonica. It's just a great track.

Though the rest of the album suffers from 3 or 4 fillers among some other very good tracks, those top 5 methinks simply have that Stones spark. Under-rated album definitely.

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: stones_serb ()
Date: February 10, 2012 16:36

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.

I absolutely adore Steel Wheels and it finds its place in my rotation far more frequently than Bridges and Voodoo but the argument could be made about those two subsequent albums being better produced

Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by: seitan ()
Date: February 10, 2012 16:48

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Quote
seitan
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
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"?

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.

So what are you doing here - if you dont even like the Stones ?
(It´s only rock n roll is one the best Stones classics ever..)
They have more than one reggae song, - you would know that, if you were a Stones fan...but I guess youre just a tourist here. "send it to me..."

(Releasing a song about a "war" a year after the "war" happened is still relevance -in fact you can still find people who think that Iraq war was a good idea, and wars dont ever end when the soldiers go home, wars end when children are safe, secure and life goes back to normal and all is forgotten...)







Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-10 17:09 by seitan.

Goto Page: Previous123456789Next
Current Page: 4 of 9


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 320
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