80s and 90s the Stones probably have it but since then?

Emotional Rescue (1980)/Tattoo You (1981)/Undercover (1983)/Dirty Work (1986)/Steel Wheels (1989) vs Saved (1980)/Shot of Love (1981)/Infidels (1983)/Empire Burlesque (1985)/Knocked Out Loaded (1986)/Down in the Groove (1988)/Oh Mercy (1989). Pretty even but edged by the Stones.

Voodoo Lounge (1994)/Bridges to Babylon (1997) vs Under the Red Sky (1990)/Good as I Been to You (1992)/World Gone Wrong (1993)/Time Out of Mind (1997) Bob was hit and miss but the Stones were pretty consistent.

A Bigger Bang (2005) vs Love and Theft (2001)/Modern Times (2006)/Together Through Life (2009)/Christmas in the Heart (2009). Hands down for Bobby.

Tempest (2012) vs?

>Bob was hit and miss but the Stones were pretty consistent.


hard not to be when you only put out two albums a decade, in fairness.

And Bob has released a lot more non-studio album material in that period than the Stones have (Bootleg Series etc)

interesting observation, gazza. do you think that's been the stones' strategy these past few decades as a means of attempting to stay ahead of dylan? up to this point i just assumed it was pure laziness, but perhaps i should give them more credit....

Quote
Doxa
Edward, I suppose I agree with you for Dylan being artistically a bit above the Stones during the time frame, at laest if we look at the highlights. Yeah, INFIDELS is a bit uneven album, but it has some high-class songs, such as "Joker Man", "Sweatheart Like You", and "Licence To Kill" (and teh best song not even made the album...), which will not shame one inch when compared to Dylan's 'classics'. By contrast, UNDERCOVER has not one song one could compare to Stones' glory past, even though the title song and "She Was Hot" are rather strong ones.

The Stones then came up with their all-time low DIRTY WORK and Dylan with KNOCKED OUT LOADED, probably the same, and DOWN IN THE GROOVE didn't help either. But I think the sequence of albums PRIMITIVE COOL, TALK IS CHEAP, STEEL WHEELS and WANDERING SPIRIT was actually rather strong series of albums, while Dylan only had one peak - OH MERCY - during the time. So I would say the things looked better in Stones camp then (1987-92), even though only Dylan making an album that can be called 'masterpiece' now. The trumphial come back tour of The Stones should not be ignored as well.

Well, MAIN OFFENDER (pl. "Words of Wonder" and "Hate It When You Leave") and VOODOO LOUNGE showed that the muse has left the building, and BRIDGES TO BABYLON wasn't that better after-all, and just another world tour, and one similar after that again, wasn't any big deal artistically any longer. And Dylan's doings were not nothing to write home about during the time either (a bit more interesting in retropsect, though). But TIME OUT OF MIND made it all different...

- Doxa

The thing i am really trying to get at is pretty much what you hinted at in the first paragraph, Doxa. Yes, INFIDELS is uneven, for sure, yet there are songs as you say that could stand alongside Bob's very best without fear of intimidation, which could hardly be said for the Stones with UNDERCOVER. In fact, there is NOTHING the Stones have recorded post TATTOO YOU which comes anywhere near close to the quality of their work while at their peak. PRIMITIVE COOL, TALK IS CHEAP, STEEL WHEELS and WANDERING SPIRIT may possess a certain cohesion of sound in terms of them being vaguely entertaining albums to listen to as a whole, yet individually very few of the tracks truly hold up, and the ones which may be deemed the most impressive still aren't really that great, certainly not belonging in the first or maybe even second division Stones songs. The Stones truly began to lose their muse post SOME GIRLS, and although there are the odd interesting tracks on EMOTIONAL RESCUE, the downward spiral has been pretty consistent. Bob, on the other hand, has shown flickers of the old spark, even if the consistency to maintain it to a level of consistency has been lacking. Maybe it's true, however, that he did pretty much lose it for EMPIRE BURLESQUE, KNOCKED OUT LOADED and DOWN IN THE GROOVE, although like you, i feel there are some good ideas on EMPIRE BURLESQUE marred by an overly 80s production. However, OH MERCY is a very impressive album pretty much from start to finish. I have never been fully in agreement with everything Daniel Lanois has done as producer for Bob, but there is no doubting he encouraged Bob to rediscover his muse and a sense of direction. OH MERCY does show Bob's muse largely returned, and for me, it is a better album than their later collaboration TIME OUT OF MIND, despite all the plaudits that album received at the time. I tend to believe OH MERCY has aged far better than the Stones STEEL WHEELS, and Lou Reed's NEW YORK, which was another album seen as a great comeback from a veteran back in 89.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-11 20:19 by Edward Twining.

Quote
StonesTod
interesting observation, gazza. do you think that's been the stones' strategy these past few decades as a means of attempting to stay ahead of dylan? up to this point i just assumed it was pure laziness, but perhaps i should give them more credit....

The Who and The Beach Boys are streets ahead of both of them!

Quote
windmelody
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.

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.[/quote]

True true true truer words never have been said!!!

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.[/quote]

True true true truer words never have been said!!!

Listening to Doom and Gloom versus Tempest I would say Bob has pulled MILES ahead of our boys!!!!

Quote
slew
Listening to Doom and Gloom versus Tempest I would say Bob has pulled MILES ahead of our boys!!!!

At least Tempest is...weird. It challenges us. Gloom and Doom is almost insulting.

Gloom and Doom is almost insulting..... That's the Fracking Stones for ya



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Gloom and Doom is almost insulting..... That's the Fracking Stones for ya

Well, frack me, Rockman. You're right.

Is this the same Bob Dylan who did an album of Christmas songs?

Yes it is! The album was called "Christmas in the Heart," and it was truly, truly awful.

The critics loved it of course. Slant Magazine's Jesse Cataldo said "This enjoyable sense of exploration, which prizes levity in a genre that usually amounts to an artistic wasteland, is invaluable. It also proves how much life is left in the songs, and how much other artists have succeeded at butchering them."

To critics, Uncle Bob can do no wrong. However, Bob Dylan, like the Emporer, ocassionally wears no clothes.

christmas from the heart is a keeper....together thru life? not so much...

Quote
Pietro

To critics, Uncle Bob can do no wrong. However, Bob Dylan, like the Emporer, ocassionally wears no clothes.

Oh Mercy, Time Out of Mind, Love and Theft, Modern Times, Together Through Life and to an extent Christmas in the Heart were indeed lauded by critics and fans, but during the same period Knocked Out Loaded, Down in the Groove, Under the Red Sky, Good as I Been to You and World Gone Wrong all got a fair bit of stick. He isn't always praised.

I quite like the Christmas album, Must be santa is a gem with a great video.

Bob's take on Must Be Santa is really good the rest of the Christmas stuff is just ok

Quote
Pietro
Is this the same Bob Dylan who did an album of Christmas songs?

Yes it is! The album was called "Christmas in the Heart," and it was truly, truly awful.

The critics loved it of course. Slant Magazine's Jesse Cataldo said "This enjoyable sense of exploration, which prizes levity in a genre that usually amounts to an artistic wasteland, is invaluable. It also proves how much life is left in the songs, and how much other artists have succeeded at butchering them."

To critics, Uncle Bob can do no wrong. However, Bob Dylan, like the Emporer, ocassionally wears no clothes.

I find it utterly unlistenable, personally - but considering his sole and very noble motivation was to raise thousands of pounds for children's charities I think I can forgive him for it.

What was that recent compilation where like 50 artists did Dylan songs? Every one of them sucked. Modern artists have even lost the ability to turn his great songs into something more commercial, ala Peter Paul & Mary, or the Byrds.

Face it, Dylan must be a force of nature. Age has not yet humbled him, except his voice appears on the edge of unlistenability. By contrast it may be doing the Stones no good to have all these recent releases of them younger and at fuller power, either on DVD or with spruced up vault cuts. I first heard it in Jagger's voice at the White House Blues concert. He seemed winded and the voice was not as full. That continued onto the SNL appearance. Even with 'Doom and Gloom' his vocals have lost a step, which is rough when so much of your image is built on a certain level of performance.

And in the end I just don't think the Rolling Stones care as much anymore. I think they've finally had it and just want their justly deserved golden years. I think Keith started a few years early.

Quote
24FPS
And in the end I just don't think the Rolling Stones care as much anymore. I think they've finally had it and just want their justly deserved golden years. I think Keith started a few years early.

spot on. keith was always something of a trend-setter. i suspect others will be following suit and resting on their laurels much as they stole his riffs in years past.

imo van morrison over the past 20 years has passed the stones too

>What was that recent compilation where like 50 artists did Dylan songs? Every one of them sucked.

Nonsense.

>Even with 'Doom and Gloom' his vocals have lost a step, which is rough when so much of your image is built on a certain level of performance.

Rubbish.

I concur with this review of D&G from the New Yorker:

Jagger goes on to speculate as to the origins of this nightmare: “What’s it all about? / I guess it just reflects my mood / Sitting in the dirt / Feeling kind of hurt / When all I hear is doom and gloom.” The way he phrases “mood” should be studied by all singers from here on out.

Quote
Glam Descendant
>What was that recent compilation where like 50 artists did Dylan songs? Every one of them sucked.

Nonsense.

>Even with 'Doom and Gloom' his vocals have lost a step, which is rough when so much of your image is built on a certain level of performance.

Rubbish.

I concur with this review of D&G from the New Yorker:

Jagger goes on to speculate as to the origins of this nightmare: “What’s it all about? / I guess it just reflects my mood / Sitting in the dirt / Feeling kind of hurt / When all I hear is doom and gloom.” The way he phrases “mood” should be studied by all singers from here on out.

Okay, I'll give you that Jagger's voice isn't that bad on Doom and Gloom, but you tell me one good cover on that Dylan Amnesty International tribute album. I went through all 76 tracks and didn't keep one.

>Okay, I'll give you that Jagger's voice isn't that bad on Doom and Gloom, but you tell me one good cover on that Dylan Amnesty International tribute album. I went through all 76 tracks and didn't keep one.


"You're A Big Girl Now" by My Morning Jacket.

Quote
Glam Descendant
>Okay, I'll give you that Jagger's voice isn't that bad on Doom and Gloom, but you tell me one good cover on that Dylan Amnesty International tribute album. I went through all 76 tracks and didn't keep one.


"You're A Big Girl Now" by My Morning Jacket.

Lucinda had a good one...





2 1 2 0

>Lucinda had a good one...

Yep, that's another one.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
slew
Listening to Doom and Gloom versus Tempest I would say Bob has pulled MILES ahead of our boys!!!!

At least Tempest is...weird. It challenges us. Gloom and Doom is almost insulting.

Gloom and Doom is as a matter of fact nothing new but its good to hear something after 7 years and its fresh and moves.
Tempest is nothing new either but with a granny voice sung and performed by a frustrated old man.

So I'll contradict myself now. Aside from the obvious fact that to put out 2 songs every five years is not quite enough to say that a band is "working", I actually think that Doom & Gloom (which left me cold at first) tops anything on Tempest by a dozen miles. The lyrics are just so much fun!

"Lost all the treasure in an overseas war, just goes to show you don't get what you paid for" is a great line, not for its first half (nothing new there) but for the irony of the attitude of the taxpayer, "where's my return on equity? I invest in a war, I want my money's worth!" It's ironic, it's sarcastic, it's oblique, it's fun.

"Fracking the ground for oil" is cool too, as is "crash landing in a Louisiana swamp". And the best is:

"Hear a funky noise? It's the tightening of the screws" - brilliant!

I'd take these lines over all the easy pompous symbolism of Tempest (title track), plus there is the VOICE, the irreverencious, fun, mocking and self-mocking growl.

Maybe it's not about music. It's about the fact that Mick (for Doom & Gloom, everybody seems to agree, is a Mick song) may be a fat tax-exilee, a rich tory, a selfish bastard, a ruthless womaniser and Dylan a modern saint; nonetheless, Mick has retained a sense of humour, a sense of non-sense, a sense of fun and every now and then bam! score!

These days I have sunk into horrible pessimism about the world (economy + politics) and between books and reports, I don't feel like playing Tempest, but I love to blast Doom é Gloom very loud: indeed it reflects my mood and helps me damn it all to hell once in a while. And THAT is what I ask to a ROCK N ROLL SONG!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-15 15:26 by otonneau.

>Maybe it's not about music. It's about the fact that Mick (for Doom & Gloom, everybody seems to agree, is a Mick song) may be a fat tax-exilee, a rich tory, a selfish bastard, a ruthless womaniser and Dylan a modern saint; nonetheless, Mick has retained a sense of humour, a sense of non-sense, a sense of fun and every now and then bam! score!


I still hear humour in Dylan's new tunes.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
imo van morrison over the past 20 years has passed the stones too

Heard one of Van's new songs today on the radio driving home from work. It is dangerous stuff. Really is. I fell asleep and almost plowed into into truck.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Pietro
Is this the same Bob Dylan who did an album of Christmas songs?

Yes it is! The album was called "Christmas in the Heart," and it was truly, truly awful.

The critics loved it of course. Slant Magazine's Jesse Cataldo said "This enjoyable sense of exploration, which prizes levity in a genre that usually amounts to an artistic wasteland, is invaluable. It also proves how much life is left in the songs, and how much other artists have succeeded at butchering them."

To critics, Uncle Bob can do no wrong. However, Bob Dylan, like the Emporer, ocassionally wears no clothes.

I find it utterly unlistenable, personally - but considering his sole and very noble motivation was to raise thousands of pounds for children's charities I think I can forgive him for it.

Me too. But I stll can't forgive him for "Shot Of Love".

This isn't a race. Dylan has alot more latitude as a solo artist than the Stones anyway. Comparing a band to a single singer/songwriter is never going to yield an accurate comparison. Words in the wind.

As an author I thought Bob was excellent and accurate, better than Keith really and probably a bit more involved in the actual writing. peace