For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: February 10, 2012 21:45
Quote
seitan
I think the production on Biger Bang is much better than Undercover, Dirty Work, or Steel Wheels - Bridges To Babylon was interesting side step as far as production goes, - but on Bigger Bang they were back on right track and I think it´s the best one of the later day albums. Cheers.
Absolutely agree with you. This is one of my favorite albums and I like that there is no smell of history. For a relatively young person like me this album is relevant, it resonates with the time in which I live, not my parents in 1972
Besides that I like the way they relate to the aging process. These topics are important to me, but I can not listen to the old crooners who's been impotent for 10 years or more
I do not want to convince those who do not like this album or latter day Stones. It really says more about them than about the Stones.
I think ABB is terrific album, and lately I've been listening to it very often. Those who like it might be interested in a little reminder, a couple of reviews when ABB came out.
The Independent
Album: The Rolling Stones
A Bigger Bang, VIRGIN
By Andy Gill
Published: 02 September 2005
five stars
Throughout the Nineties, we got used to hearing that the latest Stones album was rather better than one might expect, despite the likes of Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon ultimately being regarded as little more than audio fly-posters for the band's latest globe-girdling tour, each ekeing out the usual one or two decent tracks with acres of half-hearted filler.
So it's with a certain trepidation that I welcome A Bigger Bang as, yes, better than one might expect; a lot better, in fact - good enough to put on instead of reaching for the band's former glories again. Let's put it this way: if albums were still only 10 or 12 tracks long, and all the fat was trimmed from the 16 here, the result might well be fit to stand alongside Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers. Which is about as good as it gets.
The opening "Rough Justice" serves notice of their intentions with a classic Keith Richards raunch-riff in the vein of "Brown Sugar", while Jagger reflects on "animal attraction" with all the charm and elegance befitting a sixtysomething reprobate. "Once upon a time I was your little rooster," he leers, "now I'm just one of your cocksss!", drawing out the sibilant like a schoolboy sniggering at his own cheek. One's first reaction is amused exasperation, a weary shake of the head, but then you think, well, isn't that exactly what he's there for? The second time around, you're singing along, your inner schoolkid awakened.
A few tracks later, he's slaying you in a different way with the haunting new single "Streets of Love", which features Mick's most affecting delivery in decades, and a hum-along falsetto hook which, once under your skin, won't easily be dislodged. It's just one in a series of songs which characterise him as the regretful or reproachful victim of love, taken to the cleaners by women more devious and manipulative than himself, unlikely as that may seem. Meanwhile Keith has gone back to the basics which served him so well three or four decades ago, distilling the essence of rock'n'roll to just two or three judiciously chosen chords, played with his own distinctive swagger-sway panache. And, whether it's due to his getting through chemotherapy, or simply a desire to get back in the saddle after a longer-than-usual hiatus, Charlie's on storming form throughout A Bigger Bang, powering songs like "It Won't Take Long" and the irresistible funk-rock juggernaut "Rain Fall Down".
Mick also plays some sizzling slide-guitar licks on the hallucinatory blues "Back Of My Hand" ("I see dreams, I see visions/ Images I don't understand/ I see Goya's paranoias/ I can read it like the back of my hand", and his blues-harp work there and on the political broadside "Sweet Neo Con" has bite and piquancy.
"Uncut"
Allan Jones
FIVE STARS
ALBUM OF THE MONTH
A short sample :
On the nasty "Dangerous Beauty", (Keith) plays with an inspred brutality I dont think I've heard since Neil Young plugged in for the 'El Dorado' sessions, a series of bucking howls, astonishingly loud. His solo on "Driving Too Fast", meanwhile, is like being torn apart by gunfire.
The real revelation here, however, is the oft-derided Jagger...for the first time probably since "Some Girls", (he) seems to have turned up for work with more than a series of blues cliches and a rhyming dictionary with half the pages torn out. There are some outstanding songs here, and Jagger turns in a series of performances that are their match, full of much defiant flouncing, strutting bitchiness, preening arrogance, snarling haughtiness and a typically provocative misogyny.
Thanks to Rocks Off archive and Gazza
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: February 10, 2012 22:10
There is really no need to defend the latter day Stones. The latter day Stones has reaped what the former day Stones sowed.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 10, 2012 22:48
Quote
proudmary
I do not want to convince those who do not like this album or latter day Stones. It really says more about them than about the Stones.
i've been spending a good part of the week trying to learn about myself. i don't like ABB...would you kindly please tell me what it tells me about me. Thanks!
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: February 10, 2012 23:23
Quote
StonesTodQuote
proudmary
I do not want to convince those who do not like this album or latter day Stones. It really says more about them than about the Stones.
i've been spending a good part of the week trying to learn about myself. i don't like ABB...would you kindly please tell me what it tells me about me. Thanks!
There´s those who spend their whole life pointing at things they hate and dislike..and then there are those who spend their lives searching for more things to love and dance to.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: February 10, 2012 23:23
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.
Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.
Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
seitan
()
Date: February 10, 2012 23:41
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.
Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.
Are you kidding me ? - I just tried to listen to "It Must Be Hell" from Undercover - you call that mickey mouse drum sound smokin`? HAH !- It´s thin as a matchbox. No balls whatsoever, none - You cant get more eighties radiofriendly than that. I guess I should ask - what happened to YOU when Undercover was released, - got married, got kids, got laid, won the lottery ?
The past is a great place and I don't want to erase it or to regret it, but I don't want to be its prisoner either.
- Mick Jagger
People love talking about when they were young and heard Honky Tonk Women for the first time. It's quite a heavy load to carry on your shoulders, the memories of other people.
- Mick Jagger
People have this obsession. They want you to be like you were in 1969. They want you to, because otherwise their youth goes with you. .
Mick Jagger
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-10 23:42 by seitan.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 10, 2012 23:49
Quote
seitanQuote
StonesTodQuote
proudmary
I do not want to convince those who do not like this album or latter day Stones. It really says more about them than about the Stones.
i've been spending a good part of the week trying to learn about myself. i don't like ABB...would you kindly please tell me what it tells me about me. Thanks!
There´s those who spend their whole life pointing at things they hate and dislike..and then there are those who spend their lives searching for more things to love and dance to.
and when those of us who don't think we have found things to love and dance to in latter-day Stones albums, or have foud them in other artists instead, then we are all middle-aged bores who have lost the spirit of rock n roll.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-10 23:51 by 71Tele.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: February 10, 2012 23:54
Quote
seitanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.
Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.
Are you kidding me ? - I just tried to listen to "It Must Be Hell" from Undercover - you call that mickey mouse drum sound smokin`? HAH !- It´s thin as a matchbox. No balls whatsoever, none - You cant get more eighties radiofriendly than that. I guess I should ask - what happened to YOU when Undercover was released, - got married, got kids, got laid, won the lottery ?
The past is a great place and I don't want to erase it or to regret it, but I don't want to be its prisoner either.
- Mick Jagger
People love talking about when they were young and heard Honky Tonk Women for the first time. It's quite a heavy load to carry on your shoulders, the memories of other people.
- Mick Jagger
People have this obsession. They want you to be like you were in 1969. They want you to, because otherwise their youth goes with you. .
Mick Jagger
I have no problem believing Mick Jagger is as much in denial about his group's more recent work as some people here. Obviously he doesn't want to go around believeing that his songwriting has declined. I am sure in his mind "Streets Of Love" is as good as "Wild Horses".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-10 23:54 by 71Tele.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 11, 2012 00:48
Quote
71TeleQuote
seitanQuote
StonesTodQuote
proudmary
I do not want to convince those who do not like this album or latter day Stones. It really says more about them than about the Stones.
i've been spending a good part of the week trying to learn about myself. i don't like ABB...would you kindly please tell me what it tells me about me. Thanks!
There´s those who spend their whole life pointing at things they hate and dislike..and then there are those who spend their lives searching for more things to love and dance to.
and when those of us who don't think we have found things to love and dance to in latter-day Stones albums, or have foud them in other artists instead, then we are all middle-aged bores who have lost the spirit of rock n roll.
Anyone who is well fed and safe probably has the true spirit of rock n roll only with an incredible amount of effort. hernia-inducing effort.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: February 11, 2012 00:49
Quote
71TeleQuote
seitanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.
Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.
Are you kidding me ? - I just tried to listen to "It Must Be Hell" from Undercover - you call that mickey mouse drum sound smokin`? HAH !- It´s thin as a matchbox. No balls whatsoever, none - You cant get more eighties radiofriendly than that. I guess I should ask - what happened to YOU when Undercover was released, - got married, got kids, got laid, won the lottery ?
The past is a great place and I don't want to erase it or to regret it, but I don't want to be its prisoner either.
- Mick Jagger
People love talking about when they were young and heard Honky Tonk Women for the first time. It's quite a heavy load to carry on your shoulders, the memories of other people.
- Mick Jagger
People have this obsession. They want you to be like you were in 1969. They want you to, because otherwise their youth goes with you. .
Mick Jagger
I have no problem believing Mick Jagger is as much in denial about his group's more recent work as some people here. Obviously he doesn't want to go around believeing that his songwriting has declined. I am sure in his mind "Streets Of Love" is as good as "Wild Horses".
I'd say Plundered My Soul is as good as Wild Horses - and according to Mick Taylor Jagger wrote it from scratch - and It Won't Take Long or Laugh I Nearly Died are as good as any great Stones song - and Do You Think I Really Care has one of his best perfomances for years - so Jagger doesn't need to be in denial about anything,quite the contrary: he can be very proud of himself and his band recent work.
I wonder why do you think that "some people here" understand less than you do or have the taste worse than yours?
I 've read your enthusiastic posts about the latest album of Tom Waits and it's realy weak in comparison with his previous albums. You even said how great is that absolutely horrifying song about the last two leaves.Compared to this song "Streets Of Love" is a masterpiece.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 11, 2012 01:07
Quote
proudmaryQuote
71TeleQuote
seitanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.
Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.
Are you kidding me ? - I just tried to listen to "It Must Be Hell" from Undercover - you call that mickey mouse drum sound smokin`? HAH !- It´s thin as a matchbox. No balls whatsoever, none - You cant get more eighties radiofriendly than that. I guess I should ask - what happened to YOU when Undercover was released, - got married, got kids, got laid, won the lottery ?
The past is a great place and I don't want to erase it or to regret it, but I don't want to be its prisoner either.
- Mick Jagger
People love talking about when they were young and heard Honky Tonk Women for the first time. It's quite a heavy load to carry on your shoulders, the memories of other people.
- Mick Jagger
People have this obsession. They want you to be like you were in 1969. They want you to, because otherwise their youth goes with you. .
Mick Jagger
I have no problem believing Mick Jagger is as much in denial about his group's more recent work as some people here. Obviously he doesn't want to go around believeing that his songwriting has declined. I am sure in his mind "Streets Of Love" is as good as "Wild Horses".
I'd say Plundered My Soul is as good as Wild Horses - and according to Mick Taylor Jagger wrote it from scratch - and It Won't Take Long or Laugh I Nearly Died are as good as any great Stones song - and Do You Think I Really Care has one of his best perfomances for years - so Jagger doesn't need to be in denial about anything,quite the contrary: he can be very proud of himself and his band recent work.
I wonder why do you think that "some people here" understand less than you do or have the taste worse than yours?
I 've read your enthusiastic posts about the latest album of Tom Waits and it's realy weak in comparison with his previous albums. You even said how great is that absolutely horrifying song about the last two leaves.Compared to this song "Streets Of Love" is a masterpiece.
With due respect PM, PMS was written 40 + years ago. I agree with you though, and if it had been released 40 years ago, instead of now it would probably be held in much higher regard. Although I do like the songs you've pointed out as well, I think the stones generally haven't done themselves particularly proud in the post-Undercover period.
For instance, can there be 4 weaker tracks the 4 'new cuts' alongside the 36 classics in 40 Licks. That was a joke.
Bridges to Babylon had a couple of good songs, but not really more. Voodoo Lounge was bloated, Steel Wheels overproduced (but ok), Dirty Work was ridiculous.
ABB should have been cut to 10 or 11 songs...that is definitely the best of the bunch though IMHO. Better than ABB, has been Superheavy (I'm ducking the tomatoes already), Exile Deluxe and the startling Some Girls Deluxe songs.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: February 11, 2012 01:29
The set list
Start Me Up
Let's Spend The Night Together
Rough Justice
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
Let It Bleed
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Midnight Rambler
I'll Go Crazy
Tumbling Dice
--- Introductions
You Got The Silver (Keith)
I Wanna Hold You (Keith)
Miss You (to B-stage)
It's Only Rock'n Roll (B-stage)
Satisfaction (B-stage)
Honky Tonk Women (to main stage)
Sympathy For The Devil
Paint It Black
Jumping Jack Flash
Brown Sugar (encore)
This is the setlist from Ullevi, Göteborg (Gothenburg), Sweden 2007. A typical setlist from the tour. From a total of 19 songs 3 songs are post Tattoo You (1981). What does that tell us?
Start Me Up
Let's Spend The Night Together
Rough Justice
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
Let It Bleed
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Midnight Rambler
I'll Go Crazy
Tumbling Dice
--- Introductions
You Got The Silver (Keith)
I Wanna Hold You (Keith)
Miss You (to B-stage)
It's Only Rock'n Roll (B-stage)
Satisfaction (B-stage)
Honky Tonk Women (to main stage)
Sympathy For The Devil
Paint It Black
Jumping Jack Flash
Brown Sugar (encore)
This is the setlist from Ullevi, Göteborg (Gothenburg), Sweden 2007. A typical setlist from the tour. From a total of 19 songs 3 songs are post Tattoo You (1981). What does that tell us?
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
proudmary
()
Date: February 11, 2012 01:30
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
proudmaryQuote
71TeleQuote
seitanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.
Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.
Are you kidding me ? - I just tried to listen to "It Must Be Hell" from Undercover - you call that mickey mouse drum sound smokin`? HAH !- It´s thin as a matchbox. No balls whatsoever, none - You cant get more eighties radiofriendly than that. I guess I should ask - what happened to YOU when Undercover was released, - got married, got kids, got laid, won the lottery ?
The past is a great place and I don't want to erase it or to regret it, but I don't want to be its prisoner either.
- Mick Jagger
People love talking about when they were young and heard Honky Tonk Women for the first time. It's quite a heavy load to carry on your shoulders, the memories of other people.
- Mick Jagger
People have this obsession. They want you to be like you were in 1969. They want you to, because otherwise their youth goes with you. .
Mick Jagger
I have no problem believing Mick Jagger is as much in denial about his group's more recent work as some people here. Obviously he doesn't want to go around believeing that his songwriting has declined. I am sure in his mind "Streets Of Love" is as good as "Wild Horses".
I'd say Plundered My Soul is as good as Wild Horses - and according to Mick Taylor Jagger wrote it from scratch - and It Won't Take Long or Laugh I Nearly Died are as good as any great Stones song - and Do You Think I Really Care has one of his best perfomances for years - so Jagger doesn't need to be in denial about anything,quite the contrary: he can be very proud of himself and his band recent work.
I wonder why do you think that "some people here" understand less than you do or have the taste worse than yours?
I 've read your enthusiastic posts about the latest album of Tom Waits and it's realy weak in comparison with his previous albums. You even said how great is that absolutely horrifying song about the last two leaves.Compared to this song "Streets Of Love" is a masterpiece.
With due respect PM, PMS was written 40 + years ago. I agree with you though, and if it had been released 40 years ago, instead of now it would probably be held in much higher regard. Although I do like the songs you've pointed out as well, I think the stones generally haven't done themselves particularly proud in the post-Undercover period.
For instance, can there be 4 weaker tracks the 4 'new cuts' alongside the 36 classics in 40 Licks. That was a joke.
Bridges to Babylon had a couple of good songs, but not really more. Voodoo Lounge was bloated, Steel Wheels overproduced (but ok), Dirty Work was ridiculous.
ABB should have been cut to 10 or 11 songs...that is definitely the best of the bunch though IMHO. Better than ABB, has been Superheavy (I'm ducking the tomatoes already), Exile Deluxe and the startling Some Girls Deluxe songs.
Mick Taylor
“I saw Mick (Jagger) a couple of years ago when I did overdubs for a previously unreleased track on the remastered version of Exile On Main Street.
“It felt so comfortable. I just did it in a hour. It was just a backing track with no vocal until he wrote a song around a chord sequence and I added some guitar.”
[www.perthshireadvertiser.co.uk]
as for ABB - it doesn't matter how many so-so songs are there: 3 or 5. The fact that at least 10 strong songs are still there and 3-4 of them outstanding and not in nostalgic way - these songs are modern and vibrant.
I can not see the point in comparing their work in youth and now. No one compares the "Resurrection" of Leo Tolstoy with his first book. They are two different people who wrote them and the readers know it. It seems the fans of pop music are a little bit dull or infantile
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 11, 2012 01:31
Quote
Stoneage
The set list
Start Me Up
Let's Spend The Night Together
Rough Justice
Ain't Too Proud To Beg
Let It Bleed
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Midnight Rambler
I'll Go Crazy
Tumbling Dice
--- Introductions
You Got The Silver (Keith)
I Wanna Hold You (Keith)
Miss You (to B-stage)
It's Only Rock'n Roll (B-stage)
Satisfaction (B-stage)
Honky Tonk Women (to main stage)
Sympathy For The Devil
Paint It Black
Jumping Jack Flash
Brown Sugar (encore)
This is the setlist from Ullevi, Göteborg (Gothenburg), Sweden 2007. A typical setlist from the tour. From a total of 19 songs 3 songs are post Tattoo You (1981). What does that tell us?
One thing it tells me for sure is that they have 2 too many Keith songs.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 11, 2012 01:36
Quote
71TeleQuote
seitanQuote
StonesTodQuote
proudmary
I do not want to convince those who do not like this album or latter day Stones. It really says more about them than about the Stones.
i've been spending a good part of the week trying to learn about myself. i don't like ABB...would you kindly please tell me what it tells me about me. Thanks!
There´s those who spend their whole life pointing at things they hate and dislike..and then there are those who spend their lives searching for more things to love and dance to.
and when those of us who don't think we have found things to love and dance to in latter-day Stones albums, or have foud them in other artists instead, then we are all middle-aged bores who have lost the spirit of rock n roll.
i think you're getting the hang of this
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 11, 2012 01:37
Quote
seitanQuote
StonesTodQuote
proudmary
I do not want to convince those who do not like this album or latter day Stones. It really says more about them than about the Stones.
i've been spending a good part of the week trying to learn about myself. i don't like ABB...would you kindly please tell me what it tells me about me. Thanks!
There´s those who spend their whole life pointing at things they hate and dislike..and then there are those who spend their lives searching for more things to love and dance to.
which one am i?
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: February 11, 2012 01:43
To answer my own question: Maybe it tells us that the Stones themselves doesn't value their work from the last three decades that high?
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 11, 2012 01:50
Quote
Stoneage
To answer my own question: Maybe it tells us that the Stones themselves doesn't value their work from the last three decades that high?
i guess maybe it tells us that they're the kind of people who spend their whole lives pointing at things they hate and dislike
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: February 11, 2012 01:57
I'm not quite sure I follow you there, Tod. I'm doing my best with empirics. But I guess such things doesn't count here...
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
DiamondDog7
()
Date: February 11, 2012 02:05
My opinion is;
The Stones are now a big money making business. I don't blame them, because they've done very well in the past. But the Stones aren't 4 people anymore. It's a big production with 4 major directors, with support of the whole crew in the back to help them big time. The whole charm of the past is totally gone. But hey, that's life.
The other thing bothers me the most is the setlist. I'm pretty sick and tired of those well known songs (brown sugar, satisfaction, start me up, etc etc) again. I HATE to see some 'simple minds' in the audience falsly shouting those hits. Those songs are being "raped" by these people. Can't stand those songs any more. Sorry guys...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-11 02:08 by DiamondDog7.
The Stones are now a big money making business. I don't blame them, because they've done very well in the past. But the Stones aren't 4 people anymore. It's a big production with 4 major directors, with support of the whole crew in the back to help them big time. The whole charm of the past is totally gone. But hey, that's life.
The other thing bothers me the most is the setlist. I'm pretty sick and tired of those well known songs (brown sugar, satisfaction, start me up, etc etc) again. I HATE to see some 'simple minds' in the audience falsly shouting those hits. Those songs are being "raped" by these people. Can't stand those songs any more. Sorry guys...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-11 02:08 by DiamondDog7.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
StonesTod
()
Date: February 11, 2012 02:14
Quote
Stoneage
I'm not quite sure I follow you there, Tod. I'm doing my best with empirics. But I guess such things doesn't count here...
i'm just doing satan's...er...seitan's work....
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
belld
()
Date: February 11, 2012 02:34
Quote
StonesTodQuote
71TeleQuote
seitanQuote
StonesTodQuote
proudmary
I do not want to convince those who do not like this album or latter day Stones. It really says more about them than about the Stones.
i've been spending a good part of the week trying to learn about myself. i don't like ABB...would you kindly please tell me what it tells me about me. Thanks!
There´s those who spend their whole life pointing at things they hate and dislike..and then there are those who spend their lives searching for more things to love and dance to.
and when those of us who don't think we have found things to love and dance to in latter-day Stones albums, or have foud them in other artists instead, then we are all middle-aged bores who have lost the spirit of rock n roll.
i think you're getting the hang of this
Ageist crap Let the youth decide.Speak up youth.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: February 11, 2012 03:14
Quote
superrevvy
i only call names at people who call names
the only thing i hate are the haters
So you're innocent...
HEY! I really dig how you desperately try to be super-clever-clever...
To be honest, I care a shit if people share my opinion of certain albums. They move me or they don't move me, and that's all what counts.
All this rationalizing like "show me an album released in the same year as Dirty Work that's..." leads to nothing. Music is all about feeling. You can argue for months that a song like Don't Stop has all ingredients of a classic Stones tune and therefore must be a great tune - for me it's a throwaway, empty, shallow, lifeless - the Stones trying desperately to sound like classic Stones - whatever: IT DOES NOT MOVE ME.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 11, 2012 04:29
Quote
proudmaryQuote
treaclefingersQuote
proudmaryQuote
71TeleQuote
seitanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I've been a big fan of the Stones' albums when they release a new album. But a few years later they don't seem to hold up as well as some of their other 'not great' LPs like IORR and BAB. I thought Bridges was quite a vital effort and to this day it still sounds fresh, even with some of the trend crap on it, which I don't listen to so much (Juiced and Gunface for sure plus the two A ballads). Voodoo was more of a classic rock smear with some strange choices considering what they left off/didn't finish. Bang was the sound of a band focusing on itself with up and down results. At first listen pre-LP release I thought we were getting a return of the intensity of Some Girls when I heard via some footage of them recording Oh No Not You Again. After a few listens it's pedestrian at best.
Of the last three I've probably listened to Babylon more simply because of the amount of time it's been out when compared to its "follow up". But I sure did play the shit out of Bang when it came out. I managed to not listen to a few songs due to the fact that I thought they were just awful bad (Rain, Streets, Neo Con). Bang has punch, Briges is almost like a encylopedia of genres and Voodoo, well, it's still better than Dirty Work and Steel Wheels. None are as good as Undercover though. That album simply smokes all of their albums afterwords.
Are you kidding me ? - I just tried to listen to "It Must Be Hell" from Undercover - you call that mickey mouse drum sound smokin`? HAH !- It´s thin as a matchbox. No balls whatsoever, none - You cant get more eighties radiofriendly than that. I guess I should ask - what happened to YOU when Undercover was released, - got married, got kids, got laid, won the lottery ?
The past is a great place and I don't want to erase it or to regret it, but I don't want to be its prisoner either.
- Mick Jagger
People love talking about when they were young and heard Honky Tonk Women for the first time. It's quite a heavy load to carry on your shoulders, the memories of other people.
- Mick Jagger
People have this obsession. They want you to be like you were in 1969. They want you to, because otherwise their youth goes with you. .
Mick Jagger
I have no problem believing Mick Jagger is as much in denial about his group's more recent work as some people here. Obviously he doesn't want to go around believeing that his songwriting has declined. I am sure in his mind "Streets Of Love" is as good as "Wild Horses".
I'd say Plundered My Soul is as good as Wild Horses - and according to Mick Taylor Jagger wrote it from scratch - and It Won't Take Long or Laugh I Nearly Died are as good as any great Stones song - and Do You Think I Really Care has one of his best perfomances for years - so Jagger doesn't need to be in denial about anything,quite the contrary: he can be very proud of himself and his band recent work.
I wonder why do you think that "some people here" understand less than you do or have the taste worse than yours?
I 've read your enthusiastic posts about the latest album of Tom Waits and it's realy weak in comparison with his previous albums. You even said how great is that absolutely horrifying song about the last two leaves.Compared to this song "Streets Of Love" is a masterpiece.
With due respect PM, PMS was written 40 + years ago. I agree with you though, and if it had been released 40 years ago, instead of now it would probably be held in much higher regard. Although I do like the songs you've pointed out as well, I think the stones generally haven't done themselves particularly proud in the post-Undercover period.
For instance, can there be 4 weaker tracks the 4 'new cuts' alongside the 36 classics in 40 Licks. That was a joke.
Bridges to Babylon had a couple of good songs, but not really more. Voodoo Lounge was bloated, Steel Wheels overproduced (but ok), Dirty Work was ridiculous.
ABB should have been cut to 10 or 11 songs...that is definitely the best of the bunch though IMHO. Better than ABB, has been Superheavy (I'm ducking the tomatoes already), Exile Deluxe and the startling Some Girls Deluxe songs.
Mick Taylor
“I saw Mick (Jagger) a couple of years ago when I did overdubs for a previously unreleased track on the remastered version of Exile On Main Street.
“It felt so comfortable. I just did it in a hour. It was just a backing track with no vocal until he wrote a song around a chord sequence and I added some guitar.”
[www.perthshireadvertiser.co.uk]
as for ABB - it doesn't matter how many so-so songs are there: 3 or 5. The fact that at least 10 strong songs are still there and 3-4 of them outstanding and not in nostalgic way - these songs are modern and vibrant.
I can not see the point in comparing their work in youth and now. No one compares the "Resurrection" of Leo Tolstoy with his first book. They are two different people who wrote them and the readers know it. It seems the fans of pop music are a little bit dull or infantile
Just so we're clear and for the purposes of this argument...I'm on your side PM!
Which isn't to say they should have included the 4 throwaway licks tracks, OR, used some judicious editing with ABB.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: February 11, 2012 07:21
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
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.
Are you SURE it's The Last Time?
To be perfectly honest, probably not.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: February 11, 2012 07:30
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
thewatchmanQuote
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.
It's called karma. What goes around, comes around.
Once again, out of context and not relevant to the subject. You do have your way of doing that. It's admirable but not imitatible.
YOU are the master at ripping words from their context and putting your own spin to them. But that's OK. Just giving you a little taste of your own medicine.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: February 11, 2012 07:38
Plundered My Soul was only half-written 40 years ago. And if that track was released 40 years ago it would have been too reminescent of Tumbling Dice. It was perfect for the Exile reissue.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
thewatchman
()
Date: February 11, 2012 07:45
Quote
thewatchmanQuote
WeLoveToPlayTheBluesQuote
thewatchmanQuote
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.
It's called karma. What goes around, comes around.
Once again, out of context and not relevant to the subject. You do have your way of doing that. It's admirable but not imitatible.
YOU are the master at ripping words from their context and putting your own spin to them. But that's OK. Just giving you a little taste of your own medicine.
You should no better than to argue with a woman!
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 11, 2012 11:21
Hmmm.. the consensus seems to be that "latter day Stones" albums - I take them to begin with STEEL WHEELS - are weaker in quality in compared to pre-TATTOO YOU material but the difference in opinion arises what to think of them then? (okay, someone might insist that ABB is as good as EXILE but for an argument's sake I leave that that out). For some people the albums tends to be such below the old standard that they simply don't listen to them, and don't have many good words about them to share here. But for some people they still are Rolling Stones enough to make them interesting, and worth praisal. And then we have people defending their positions with varying arguments.
I have my record here at IORR in critizing latter day stuff, so I don't go there now, or try to 'defend' my position. I take the artistic downhill as a fact. What interests me is the factor that might explain the phenomenon. This is all speculation, obviously.
The artistic downhill can be seen both in quality and quantity (we are talking about four albums in 23 yaers period!) which may go hand in hand. That is: it is pretty hard to get The Stones to studio to work new material, and even when they do that, they don't waste too much time in studio: they do it as quickly as possible. Back in 1965 or 1966 they could have done masterpieces even within lesser efforts and quicker, but hey, they were twenty-plus then, fresh and vital, head full of ideas, just learning the business. When they really started doing masterpieces, and taking the studio work art-like seriously, any time and energy was used if was seen necessary to get proper results. The songs were created mostly in studio, and especially Keith Richards used the studio as his "work shop", as Charlie Watts recently described it. That was the model The Stones worked from THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES to DIRTY WORK. We know the results. Some misses surely along the years but surely never sounded boring or bored. The lesson: the way they work since 1989 differs largely from that from 1967 to 1986.
If you discuss the creativity, there are two people only who count: Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. It's up to them how a Rolling Stones record will be turned out. They are the masterminds. Take Mick first. What I find interesting that if we compare his solo stuff and the following Stones albums:
SHE'S THE BOSS -> DIRTY WORK
PRIMITIVE COOL -> STEEL WHEELS
WANDERING SPIRIT -> VOODOO LOUNGE
GODDES IN DOORWAY -> A BIGGER BANG
I think he has put much more energy to his solo work than to Stones records. I would also claim that this can be heard in results as well. I think Jagger's solo records are better aristically than the Stones albums from the same time frame. They are more ambitious, more daring, more thoughtful, more 'up to date', more finished. Of course, some of them didn't please traditional Stones fan ears, but that's their problem. Mick, and his muse, was on, and he worked his ass out for it. It is also intersting that the only Stones album that didn't have a solo album prior it, BRIDGES TO BABYLON, contains supposedly the best individual songs of the modern era! As we know, it was reconstructed from Mick (and Keith's) solo projects. I think that simple fact speaks volumes of the deep prolem within The Stones dynamics: Mick and Keith does not excite and help each ther creatively any longer. It is quite the opposite, actually. They do better result just by their own, not even thinking The Rolling Stones templete in their mind.
I don't know the reason why they don't 'click' any longer artistically. Is it so that the only way they can be in a same room is to doing compromises; neither of them dares to suggest an idea that might upset the other? Is it that Mick is totally fed up with Keith and his old working methods that he simply refuses to work that way any longer? They do it Mick's way or no way. Or is Keith totally lost without that old method? Or is that Keith's creative mill actually is dried up, and he can't contribute any longer the way he used to? Keith, if anyone, is a classical intuitive, lazy ass artist, who hates from nine to five-mentality. If the antenna's is not working, what can do...
I think the re-issue project is illuminating here. Especially the quality of "Plundered My Soul" surprised all of us. Suddenly Mick just found the spark and focus we thought he had lost a long ago. I would claim that Jagger worked harded to finish that stuff than he did with latter day Stones albums. To my eyes he found the inspiration. And what is more: like with TATTOO YOU, he didn't need to hassle with Keith in the studio; Keith's contribution, his magic touch, was already in the can. For some reason, Mick Jagger seemed to work better with Keith Richards from 1971 than of today. Maybe the reason is that Keith from 1971 was able to offer better stuff than the recent version of the artist.
Okay, I stop with some some criticism, even though I said I won't go there...
I think the general mark of the latter day material is that of sounding unfinished; they don't really work hard enough to get their ideas right and memorable, but take too many cliche-like, obvious choices. For reason or other, they just don't seem to like to waste time enough to get them right. I take that simply as a lack of interest from their side. Besides they don't really need to 'prove' anything; the big money is not any longer in record business - so what happens there does not really ruin their business; the new albums are more like a PR 'make-up' thing in the picture; just have something is enough. Personally VOODOO LOUNGE was the first album that made me feel that "hey, this band is not any longer serious". I knew the Stones had done some bad albums earlier - say, SATANIC MAJESTIES or DIRTY WORK - but they were 'bad' in an intersting way. Missed efforts. VOODOO LOUNGE was something different. Like they had their put down their inner criteria, and just taken the easy "yeah, let's do music people associates to the Stones". The result was that of 'easy-listening' form, but without heart and substance. Any of the latter-day Stones albums is 'formally' good - they represent the style of The Stones music but the actual songs are quite mediocre and unmemorable (and they tend to lose their attraction quite quickly). But positively thinking I take them as 'introduction albums' to the musical world of The Rolling Stones. If one - a potential fan - finds that music and style appealing, then one can go and start digging the 'real thing', and throw these introdictionary albums away... This is as diplomatic I can be...
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-11 11:56 by Doxa.
I have my record here at IORR in critizing latter day stuff, so I don't go there now, or try to 'defend' my position. I take the artistic downhill as a fact. What interests me is the factor that might explain the phenomenon. This is all speculation, obviously.
The artistic downhill can be seen both in quality and quantity (we are talking about four albums in 23 yaers period!) which may go hand in hand. That is: it is pretty hard to get The Stones to studio to work new material, and even when they do that, they don't waste too much time in studio: they do it as quickly as possible. Back in 1965 or 1966 they could have done masterpieces even within lesser efforts and quicker, but hey, they were twenty-plus then, fresh and vital, head full of ideas, just learning the business. When they really started doing masterpieces, and taking the studio work art-like seriously, any time and energy was used if was seen necessary to get proper results. The songs were created mostly in studio, and especially Keith Richards used the studio as his "work shop", as Charlie Watts recently described it. That was the model The Stones worked from THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES to DIRTY WORK. We know the results. Some misses surely along the years but surely never sounded boring or bored. The lesson: the way they work since 1989 differs largely from that from 1967 to 1986.
If you discuss the creativity, there are two people only who count: Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. It's up to them how a Rolling Stones record will be turned out. They are the masterminds. Take Mick first. What I find interesting that if we compare his solo stuff and the following Stones albums:
SHE'S THE BOSS -> DIRTY WORK
PRIMITIVE COOL -> STEEL WHEELS
WANDERING SPIRIT -> VOODOO LOUNGE
GODDES IN DOORWAY -> A BIGGER BANG
I think he has put much more energy to his solo work than to Stones records. I would also claim that this can be heard in results as well. I think Jagger's solo records are better aristically than the Stones albums from the same time frame. They are more ambitious, more daring, more thoughtful, more 'up to date', more finished. Of course, some of them didn't please traditional Stones fan ears, but that's their problem. Mick, and his muse, was on, and he worked his ass out for it. It is also intersting that the only Stones album that didn't have a solo album prior it, BRIDGES TO BABYLON, contains supposedly the best individual songs of the modern era! As we know, it was reconstructed from Mick (and Keith's) solo projects. I think that simple fact speaks volumes of the deep prolem within The Stones dynamics: Mick and Keith does not excite and help each ther creatively any longer. It is quite the opposite, actually. They do better result just by their own, not even thinking The Rolling Stones templete in their mind.
I don't know the reason why they don't 'click' any longer artistically. Is it so that the only way they can be in a same room is to doing compromises; neither of them dares to suggest an idea that might upset the other? Is it that Mick is totally fed up with Keith and his old working methods that he simply refuses to work that way any longer? They do it Mick's way or no way. Or is Keith totally lost without that old method? Or is that Keith's creative mill actually is dried up, and he can't contribute any longer the way he used to? Keith, if anyone, is a classical intuitive, lazy ass artist, who hates from nine to five-mentality. If the antenna's is not working, what can do...
I think the re-issue project is illuminating here. Especially the quality of "Plundered My Soul" surprised all of us. Suddenly Mick just found the spark and focus we thought he had lost a long ago. I would claim that Jagger worked harded to finish that stuff than he did with latter day Stones albums. To my eyes he found the inspiration. And what is more: like with TATTOO YOU, he didn't need to hassle with Keith in the studio; Keith's contribution, his magic touch, was already in the can. For some reason, Mick Jagger seemed to work better with Keith Richards from 1971 than of today. Maybe the reason is that Keith from 1971 was able to offer better stuff than the recent version of the artist.
Okay, I stop with some some criticism, even though I said I won't go there...
I think the general mark of the latter day material is that of sounding unfinished; they don't really work hard enough to get their ideas right and memorable, but take too many cliche-like, obvious choices. For reason or other, they just don't seem to like to waste time enough to get them right. I take that simply as a lack of interest from their side. Besides they don't really need to 'prove' anything; the big money is not any longer in record business - so what happens there does not really ruin their business; the new albums are more like a PR 'make-up' thing in the picture; just have something is enough. Personally VOODOO LOUNGE was the first album that made me feel that "hey, this band is not any longer serious". I knew the Stones had done some bad albums earlier - say, SATANIC MAJESTIES or DIRTY WORK - but they were 'bad' in an intersting way. Missed efforts. VOODOO LOUNGE was something different. Like they had their put down their inner criteria, and just taken the easy "yeah, let's do music people associates to the Stones". The result was that of 'easy-listening' form, but without heart and substance. Any of the latter-day Stones albums is 'formally' good - they represent the style of The Stones music but the actual songs are quite mediocre and unmemorable (and they tend to lose their attraction quite quickly). But positively thinking I take them as 'introduction albums' to the musical world of The Rolling Stones. If one - a potential fan - finds that music and style appealing, then one can go and start digging the 'real thing', and throw these introdictionary albums away... This is as diplomatic I can be...- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2012-02-11 11:56 by Doxa.
Re: In Defense of Latter Day Stones
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: February 11, 2012 12:11
Christ, do we really need to debate this?
If some people don´t like the latter day Stones - don´t listen to it!
If some people enjoy the latter day Stones - good for them!
It´s tempting to add this line, though:
It is with big surprise I see that a lot of Stones fans can´t find ANYTHING good to say about the latter day Stones.
Cheers
DP
If some people don´t like the latter day Stones - don´t listen to it!
If some people enjoy the latter day Stones - good for them!
It´s tempting to add this line, though:
It is with big surprise I see that a lot of Stones fans can´t find ANYTHING good to say about the latter day Stones.
Cheers
DP
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1519
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10