When did the music of The Rolling Stones lose its relevance to mainstream culture?

No, I don't mean the old hits, the warhorses, - they will never lose their relevance. I mean when did the new music of the Rolling Stones start to lose its grip on the mainstream audience?
Some say in 1981 when their last big hit, Start Me Up, was released. Some say in 1972 already when the last of the "big four" albums was released (Exile On Main Street).
Some say it has never lost its relevance. What are your thoughts about this? Is it even a subject open for debate or should we cancel it the bud?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-29 17:09 by bv.

Undercover, and the Julian temple video, which got banned, had mainstream cultural relevance in 1983.
Maybe their returning to the stage in 89, the year Lou Reed returned to form with New York, Neil Young with Freedom/Ragged Glory and Dylan with Oh Mercy. That was cultural relevance, in terms of 'classic rock' returning top the fore in advance of Americana, grunge, Britpop, the 90s.
Beyond that, though, their relevance is in their continued existence, which rests on their great songs and still great concerts and their insoluble mystique.
Given we are truly in the twilight of the rock gods, their hopefully upcoming album will create some new cultural relevance!

I've always felt they were still very much in the game with Some Girls. That was when I started listening to them properly and I know quite a few of my contemporaries for whom it was the intro album to the Stones for a generation who grew up well after they were formed. It sounded a fresh and vibrant take on the disco/punkish trends.

Good question. I think they were still a big pull for the American college students during the Voodoo Lounge. Past that I'm not really sure. It became something else. So that's my guess.

I always felt after Tattoo You (1981) was when they lost some revelance.
At least here in the States.

Whenever MTV came around.

I thought Steel Wheels was a big deal on MTV?

As a recording act, I'd agree that Undercover and the video for the song Undercover were the last moments of relevance. The long layoff to the disappointing Dirty Work and then another three years for Steel Wheels meant they fell off the radar.

As a concert draw, again a long layoff from '82 to '89 meant they were in "comeback" mode, which is a step removed from contemporary relevance, even though the tour was a smash and established a whole new stadium paradigm. Then, another five year layoff to Voodoo Lounge and tour.

My two cents.

T@3

Yes, Start Me Up was the last hurrah at their highest level. They had minor hits (for them) that were still great, like Undercover, Harlem Shuffle. But audiences had begun to tune them out until 1989, but that was mainly a live event. Mixed Emotions wasn't a big hit. (Again, not at the high level they'd attained in the past.)

They lost a step around the time Bill left. After that it was the occasional minor hit, but nothing to top the charts. They became a legacy band, more than a functioning artistic group. Their new works became less anticipated as they often harkened back to the past. Doom and Gloom and Ghost Town were appreciated, and timely, but still didn't pierce the national consciousness.

Still, other groups would die for what the Rolling Stones still have. And some new hotshot director would find a way to integrate their classic songs into movies. Songs we haven't heard used that way yet.

What new music?

Quote
NashvilleBlues
What new music?

I don’t think they have ever lost relevance in the sense that most people still love to see them live.And most artists from Pete Townsend to Taylor Swift love to perform with them still.But as the counterculture anti establishment bad boys I would say 1973

Mick would reply :

"when we were extremely controversial in the 70s we would sell out arenas and large ballrooms. Now we’ve kinda disappeared from the ’media-drama’ radar but we sell out entire stadiums. I dont think we’re on the losing end of the game..."

As far as I remember it from the late 7-tees and onwards; they weren't that hot in the eighties. The paradox is that the stadiums became packed with more and more fans during these days, even until last year.

1996...after that it was just a repetition. MTV News had a lot of Stones clips 1993, 1994...almost daily. It was Sex Drive, Highwire, interviews during rehearsals and so on. Sadam. But after that - almost nothing. 1998: More Las Vegas shows and nostalgia. But that´s just me. A hundred ways to look at it.

17 years and counting ago.

Never.

www.rsundercover.eu

When did mainstream culture lose it's relevance to Stonesfans?

www.rsundercover.eu

It also depends on the perception of the listener, at least in my case.

The early 80s I think. With the '89 big touring comeback they became this very lucrative enterprise and the tongue logo was turned into a fashion brand, but they lost their cultural relevance.

The guitar sound produced in pop music over the years (Keith's in particular) shines through for many many years already. If a band plays a sus4 chord it almost feels like they are being copy-cats. In that sense the Stones never loose or lost their relevance.

They turned in to a Disneyland themed Vegas show many years ago around the Steel Wheels tour, so in that sense they've remained "relevant" to mainstream culture.
The Stones meet Disneyland meet Las Vegas...actors and caricatures touring the world ala Cirque de Soleil. Their studio output since Dirty Work has been hit or miss (mostly miss),
but they still rake in millions of dollars while playing all the oldies but goodies for adoring fans, pillaging and plundering from one city to the next. To quote Ed Sullivan, they still put on "a really big show".

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-07-28 23:40 by Hairball.

I think their basic music genre, their bread and butter, blues influenced rock music, kind of peaked before the mid seventies. They tried to follow new trends like reggae, disco and punk after that, with mixed results.
After Tattoo You I don't really know which trends they followed or what their ambitions were music wise. But they seem to lost the plot there somewhere.

They swerved to Fat Possum
style blues for some of Bridges To Babylon .....



ROCKMAN

They did? Okay, whatever - maybe it's me that lost the plot? I guess it works both ways...

You can argue specific years, but time has proven that it was the 70s

Quote
Britney
Never.

Imagine being stuck in limbo

Quote
Britney
When did mainstream culture lose it's relevance to Stonesfans?

Good point. What is mainstream culture these days? Is there any mainstream culture? And is any of it relevant to Stones' fans?

When mainstream culture morphed into a nearly vacant wasteland, it became irrelevant to The Rolling Stones great music, thankfully.

I'd say at the end of "A Bigger Bang". That was the last of the big tours & the last record of new original material. To me, 12 dates does not a tour make. It's all good that they're still playing but to me (after listening to tapes) something is lost especially since Charlie passed away. It's more of king sized Vegas show than being especially relevant musically. God bless them for keeping it alive but I'm not sure that the current model is sustainable much longer. That goes for some other acts also. The Eagles come to mind as one but they're not playing stadiums now. If the Stones contuiue, I'd love to see them maybe go back to playing arenas. If & when they decide to retire they've more than earned it.

We felt at the time it was Goat's Head Soup. The Satanic imagery was trying too hard to be "bad," as well as pushing "Dancing with Mr D" on the radio (which took off, to use a Keithism, like a lead balloon), few people were into it at the time--in terms of mainstream popular culture--except for Angie, and in those days many people would happily tune into (and buy) singles or buy an album for one single and not listen to much of the rest of the album.

The album at that time felt disjointed and, as a whole, not like the Stones were on their game. For many Exile was too long and diffuse, but it had enough hits/singles and danceable numbers to make it an interesting album. A friend who is 10 years older than me and attended Stones early shows in NY and Jacksonville FL said for many Exile was seen as a cynical bummer and a turn-off, but I wasn't tuned into that because I was too young. But I was aware when Goats Head Soup was released and being promoted. My brother was teased by his friends for being a sucker for buying it, and he gave it to me (6 years younger) in embarrassment instead of throwing it away. I listened to it a lot, and liked some of it, but was aware it wasn't as extroverted an album as earlier albums. (I grew to like it a lot over the years)

So, I would say GHS. And then came Black & Blue--and my next closest in age brother bought it, and he hated it, and also gave it to me (some kids got hand-me-down clothes; having brothers I only got--and loved--hand me down albums). I loved Black & Blue's singles (played on AM radio a lot, which as an elementary school kid, hadn't graduated to FM yet), as well as Hand of Fate, Cherry O, etc.

From my perspective, at the time, the Stones rebounded into public mainstream view and popular acceptance with singles from IORR, with the title track getting enormous airplay on AM and FM, as well as the slithery ominous paranoic (but not cartoonish Satanism of GHS) Fingerprint File, and other toe-tappers and party/dance numbers, Ain't Too Proud to Beg, and Dance.

Interesting to see the range of perspectives here--some saying Some Girls was perceived to be relevant due to adoption of pseudo-punk and -disco. But in my world Some Girls was seen as irrelevant, culturally, except for the singles. The Stones were seen as old-hat, trying too hard to be current, and just not as interesting as the massive explosion of music that was happening and we were totally immersed in re: New Wave, Punk, Progressive, and early hip-hop (I lived in NYC and the punk/New Wave aesthetic were vibrantly ubiquitous and really exciting). The Stones seemed a nostalgia act at that point, to us. Not current--and a little embarrassing with the overtness, not the sexism per se, at that time, of the song "Some Girls," and uninteresting that it was "controversial," which at the time felt a little contrived (and I wonder, now, as I write, how much of it was contrived) like trying to recapture their former edge as cultural bad boys you wouldn't want your daughter to marry.

By that time (Some Girls), the band seemed like old men--like your uncles or something. Cool enough, and all, but not desirable in their current form.

But then--almost finished with this stream-of-consciousness--fast forward a bit, Tattoo You arrived. And that was a game-changer. Suddenly everybody was buying a Stones album again. The singles all were embraced and RELISHED and celebrated--but the album as a whole was seen as a WINNER. No more were these guys "trying" to do or be something, [again]. They actually were transcending age, and even genre, by spirited, really raw, but somehow sophisticated song after song. They sounded like no one else--once again--only them, but in this new form.

That entire ALBUM was played at parties, which hadn't happened in years. And interestingly, at least in my world, at this same time--due to the re-awareness of Stones and how exciting they could be, Exile, as an album (Side 1-3) was also suddenly being played at parties too.

That's my long download - great question!
-swiss