In the artistic sense, it's become apparent that Dylan is quickly leaving the Stones in the dust. With his 4th critically acclaimed album since 1997, there is an ever lopsided argument to be made that the Stones stopped being relevant as songwriters more than two decades ago. While Dylan had a rough patch in the 70s and 80s, he came roaring back. And while you can say the Stones had their own problems in those very same times, you can't say that they have fought their way back as artists.

No one is going to deny the Stones power to attract audiences to hear them blast out the same tired warhorses, more or less delivered in the same arrangements again and again. It's a positive cash flow position. It worked for many years and might just work again, especially with the emotional twinge that it might finally indeed be the last time. But the stage they play on now has very little room for art. Or even songs that seem to have anything to do with what is going on in their fan's lives now. They're setlists are so ossified that hearing 'You Got Me Rocking' (an 18-year-old song) is considered new.

Some people don't care for Dylan's last few albums, but millions do, including myself. He uses his soundchecks to work on new tunes and comes in hot from the road to make new recordings. The Stones used to rush into the studio from the stage, lathered and chomping at the bit. But now the second the last fireworks are blasted, and the final limousine has sped away with police escort, they disperse to their many homes to get as far away from the Stones as possible. When they do finally reconvene, they're cold and rusty and have to waste valuable time getting up to speed.

Meanwhile Dylan toys with making old rhythms new, making you swear that even the new ones are something you vaguely know from somewhere long ago. His voice is ravaged but still listenable and resonant, sounding like the mature man he is, while Mick's audience demands he still be the randy youth of 1965. Dylan has a group of regulars he tours with, but in the studio he brings in new blood, exciting the sound with the likes of a tejano accordian. The Stones seem impossible to convince that they need a new guitarist for a cut, or a different sounding piano player, or an actual rock and roll bassist. You used to be dazzled by the different sounds and players on a Stones album. Now you cringe when you read in the notes that Mick plays bass on a track, instead of giving it to a true musician.

And my god is Dylan prolific. I just listened to 'Tell Tale Signs, Rare and Unreleased 1989-2006'. It has 27 tracks and there's maybe one or two clunkers. Some of them are unreleased cuts, but some are just alternate versions and they still kick ass. It's hard to imagine the Stones having alternative versions of recents songs that anyone would care to hear. It looks like 'ol Bob came in before the British Invasion, and he's going to be here when it's last stalwarts have finally passed.

I do agree

Can't argue

Truth

I completely agree but it is very important to note the differences in style.. Dylan is a singer songwriter who happens to also play rocknroll along with a ton of other genres. The Stones are a rocknroll band and their audiences demand a rocknroll concert. Very different type of demand. Dylan used to be notorious for frustrating fans by delivering a live show that was completely different than what people 'expected'.

The problem with the Stones is that they don't seem to be a band.. At all. They can't even put together an album for their new tour. The last one had a good bit of filler. Bridges has aged better than anticipated but also has some tracks that no one will miss.

If they want to remain relevant it is not by releasing an augmented reality app of a screaming ape. They need to produce something.

The real problem is that we haven't seen anything from Keith in a very long time.. if he had released a great solo record we would be having a differing discussion. I hope he is writing and planning a last album with Mick.

Even an all blues cover album would be great. Anything! Greatest hits albums are no longer needed. New songs are wanted by all. New tour too. But new music is what bands produce. The Stones haven't challenged the world musically in quite a while.

I think as an artist Bob started on top of the heap, and remains there. I Love Dylan. He is a fricking genius who's lyrics are without peer. He is not a rock poet, but a poet poet. His range of music is also astounding. If I like anyone's music better than the Stones its Dylan, and he certainly has delivered more than them the last twenty years in albums. But when it it comes to the top of the line thrills, the Stones high energy sound, Live performances, fantastic drummer, and chart topping classics still keep them slightly ahead in the long run as a music makers, in my worthless opinion. The Stones 40 licks are better than Dylans 40 licks, but Dylan has 500+ licks and no one else comes close. In the present, there is no doubt Dylan towers over all his 60's peers.
Dylan keeps dropping songs out of his fertile mind, the bootlegs are so great to my ears because instead of polishing songs, he keeps rearranging them. He is too creative to polish, he keeps creating. It is silly to impossible to compare other acts to Dylan, because he is one of a kind, with many different facets.

as an artist dylan was always ahead of the stones

i used to admire dylan in the 60s and 70s... but he lost it a long time ago. i saw him play a few years ago on tour with merle haggard. dylan couldn't sing at all, and his contempt for his audience was palpable. he kept his back turned and never said one word in between songs. he has completely lost his sense of humor, or any sense of connection with his fans. he never once picked up a guitar, and often wandered around the stage looking lost. he wore a civil war type of costume, which made him look like someone out of the wrong century... i vowed i would never go see him again, and i haven't.

"Has Dylan pulled far ahead of the Stones?"

Yes he has.

Ever since he went electric.

At this point Dylan, Elton John, Neil Young, and Willie freakin' Nelson have pulled ahead of the Stones if only by virture of still taking a swing at some material on a regular basis.

Even the damn Beach Boys celebrated their 50th by signifigantly adding to their body of work and acheivement. They got a decent album, 2-3 songs that fans love, a number one seller and a praised tour.

I understand the Stones have probably lasted so long at the level they still are by creating a certain ,,,unavailability. The above-it-all attitude is why they are still being talked about for 100 million dollar tours while some contemporaries are lucky to do a state fair or a club show.

But...JEEZUS frickin KEE-RIST....put something out. Give it a damn try. Or at least quit blowing smoke about how passionate you are about it.

Tony Bennet and BB King have had more albums out than the Stones in the last 15 years and they are 137 years old each.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-09-30 09:49 by KeefintheNight82.

Sure, but its much easier for His Bobness than for the Stones. First, the Stones have always been much more popular. When Dylan sold a million albums, the Stones sold 10 million. Whereas Dylan ca concentrate on just making art, the Stones as always in need to 'deliver' (a hit song, a new bigger-than-before tour etc). It simply is much harder to remain 'really big' than just 'big'. Second, it's easier for Dylan to remain 'Dylan' than for the Stones to remain the 'Stones'. Dylan can switch from singer/song writer to swamp blues band to folk band to jazz band to swing band and still be Bob Dylan, and with still pleasing the fans. If the Stones would just experiment a hair left or right from classis open G Stoner rock, the fans start to complain (see Undercover, see Anybody Seen My baby etc). Then, the Stones are a bit trapped in their own format -it's the 4/5/6 of them that will have to work together, whereas Bob can fire and hire bandmembers as he wishes.

Mathijs

Easier for Dylan than the Stones? Really? It's not like the Stones have even been seriously trying for about 15 years.

Yes, I see it like Mathijs and Drake. Dylan can (and does) climb on any old stage with one guitar and harp, and there he is: vintage Dylan. he has a huge, bigger than Stones, back catalog to draw from.
Still - the Stones say they are still active. They claim to be a 'band'. They have earned the right for long lay-offs, but they are just plain overdue. With a new release; and this because they have in interviews stated that they are going to do this. And in the Box Set dept.
Personally I would LOVE a last Keith/Winos album because it is there where IMo he would really shine. More than with the Stones. The Stones are mainly a vehicle for Jagger solo material.

It is easier for Bob Dylan.

He has less people to think about and less rules.

He could put out an album of him and just a keyboard if he liked or hire a bunch of session musicians.

That said... I don't think the Stones will ever pull off a great album again... they are not "hot" enough.

"Hotness" for a band comes from playing together, digging it and sparking off each other creatively.

They don't even like each each other these days and haven't since the late 70s.

It is easier for Dylan only in the sense that he does not have to make records or tour with someone he actually dislikes (Keith for Mick, and Mick for Keith). As far as sales, he sure sold less than the Stones - though not a tenth of their sales, as suggested above, but rather about a third of their sales - the Stones are not comparable to Led Zeppelin when it comes to sales.

I am not asking the Stones to produce new great work. I don't care. They have done more than almost anybody else. I don't even care if they ever tour again. I will not anyway be paying an arm and a leg to have a good seat. They don't owe me anything. I am grateful for the great records.

But it is true that Dylan is still producing great work, and thet are not. That's all.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
as an artist dylan was always ahead of the stones

exactly could not agree more

The Stones need to go back to basics. Maybe giving up the world tours will refocus their energy on producing a few more killer albums before they pack it in.

Re: Has Dylan pulled far ahead of the Stones?



Why compare oranges to apples?



There is not canonical definition of being a Stones fan. But everytime a thread related to Veetleas or Rob Dilan or anyother band/musician comes up....the Stones get/recieve a pretty beat up....Amazing.

Anyone catch the track "I Pay in Blood" from the new album "Tempest" ? Boy,if that doesnt sound like the Stones I dont know what does.....I could picture Keith playing those riffs---sounds like it could have fit easily on Some Girls---
great track, and "Tempest" is a killer album....well done Dylan !

If it would have been somebody else NO one would haven given Tempest a second listen. Or would have gotten thorough the whole album.
The voice is old and just not good anymore. There is no sonwriting. Its just providing new lyrics with "music". Well I have to admit its a good band.

The thing is Dylan has ploughed a solitary furrow from day one.

He has been his own man, be it from Bob Dylan through to Another Side. Then, when he got a session band together for Bringing It All Back Home, the Bloomfield/Kooper axis on Highway 61, the melding of The Hawks and the Nashville cats on Blonde On Blonde, he was still Bob Dylan, above and beyond any other musician.

It is a case of listening to music for two different reasons: you listen to Dylan, you listen for the words, the poetry, what he has to say. You listen to The Stones, and you listen to how Jagger conveys the words, and how close the guitars, drums, and bass mesh together.

Quote
tomcasagranda

you listen to Dylan, you listen for the words, the poetry, what he has to say. You listen to The Stones, and you listen to how Jagger conveys the words, and how close the guitars, drums, and bass mesh together.

I love Dylan, but, my Godness, what a load of revisionist bollocks! I go to a rock show not in order to listen to the poetry - I prefer to read it at home, alone.
From my rock'n'roll I need a shot of adrenaline, drive, the liberation and the opportunity to escape the scope of familiar dreary world
And I love it when a singer sings and a perfomer know how to perform, I love how at the Stones show mesh together a theater, circus, commedia dell'arte, and sex, sex, sex...

What are you doing exactly on the Stones board?

The reason the Stones have blown it is because they lost BILL WYMAN!

Plain and Simple....

It's like the rabbit and the turtle...

2 1 2 0

I didn't know they were in a race.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I didn't know they were in a race.

Exactly
I never understood this desire to lower someone one to enjoy another

Quote
proudmary

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I didn't know they were in a race.

Exactly
I never understood this desire to lower someone one to enjoy another

From the very first day you release a book or a record your in the race...that's how life is....listen to Lennons 'Watching the wheels'...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On

Quote
proudmary

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
I didn't know they were in a race.

Exactly
I never understood this desire to lower someone one to enjoy another

From the very first day you release a book or a record your in the race...that's how life is....listen to Lennons 'Watching the wheels'...

Saying the Stones have lost their creativeness is moot. Dylan keeps being Dylan, whatever that is, and the Stones? What is there to say other than they've done ONE LP since they and Dylan released their 1997 LPs. There's nothing to compare.

The original post is absolutely true. Jagger and Richards seem to have lost their passion for music. Keith says that he does not play anymore, and the only thing Mick puts out is bad music with celebrities (Superheavy/Will I.am., J Lo). So Dylan pulled far ahead of the Stones, he is ignoring trends, and that is why there are much more youngsters at Dylan than at Stones concerts.