Quote
stonesnow
No, because in carrying on for so long they keep resetting the bar for how long groups can go on playing rock music without embarrassment, which begins to define something of a legacy in itself.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
stonesnow
No, because in carrying on for so long they keep resetting the bar for how long groups can go on playing rock music without embarrassment, which begins to define something of a legacy in itself.

So what do you call the A BIGGER BANG tour?

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
stonesnow
No, because in carrying on for so long they keep resetting the bar for how long groups can go on playing rock music without embarrassment, which begins to define something of a legacy in itself.

So what do you call the A BIGGER BANG tour?

Very successful. I didn't see any of the shows in person, but the DVDs show they were in good form. Anyway, I'm thinking of the 2 shows last month, fantastic sounding stuff.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
stonesnow
No, because in carrying on for so long they keep resetting the bar for how long groups can go on playing rock music without embarrassment, which begins to define something of a legacy in itself.

So what do you call the A BIGGER BANG tour?

Very successful. I didn't see any of the shows in person, but the DVDs show they were in good form. Anyway, I'm thinking of the 2 shows last month, fantastic sounding stuff.

Overdubs by your guitar techs can do that. But really, even that is poor. It's OK, you know, to admit that the BANG tour was not their best - except financially, of course.

Quote
salty

Quote
drbryant

Quote
salty

Quote
drbryant
. . . . .So, it would seem very strange to suggest that the group's legacy has been damaged by not stopping in 1972, when all of their most popular albums were released after that.

. . . . So I don't believe record sales necessarily have any correlation with legacy or legendary status.

I see. Well, how about reviews and awards? For many years, Rolling Stone Magazine had both a critics poll and a readers poll for album and single of the year. In addition to being the two best selling Stones albums, Some Girls and Tattoo You were named best album of the year by both fans and critics.

1978 - Best Album - Some Girls (critics)
1978 - Best Album - Some Girls (readers)
1978 - Best Single - Miss You (readers)

1981 - Best Album - Tattoo You (critics)
1981 - Best Album - Tattoo You (readers)
1981 - Best Single - Start Me Up (critics)
1981 - Best Single - Start Me Up (readers)

Their last studio album, A Bigger Bang, was runner-up in the Best Album of the Year for 2005.

Incidentally, the Stones' only Grammy Award was won in 1994 - Best Rock Album for Voodoo Lounge.

In greatest albums of all time lists, my observation is that the albums of the Stones which tend to feature most prominently are Beggars, Let It Bleed, Fingers and Exile.

For instance, in the Rolling Stone greatest albums of all time Exile is the highest ranked Stones album at no 7.

Let It Bleed is no 32. Beggars is no 58. Fingers is no 64. Aftermath is no 109. The Rolling Stones Now! is no 180.

This is all early stuff.

[www.rollingstone.com]

Voodoo Lounge, Bigger Bang etc are good records, but I believe most would say that it is not as good as the earlier stuff.

Even if you believe that "Some Girls" or "Tattoo You" is their best work, nonetheless those records are over 30 years old, so that is old stuff too really.

What have the Stones done in the last 30 years to match "Satisfaction" "Get Off Of My Cloud" "Wild Horses" "You Cant Always Get What You Want" "Jumpin Jack Flash" "Lets Spend The Night Together" "Brown Sugar" "Loving Cup" "Rocks Off" "Ruby Tuesday" etc?

Can you honestly say hand on heart that "Dirty Work" is as good as "Sticky Fingers" or that the songs on "Babylon" are as good as those on "Let It Bleed"?

Quote
salty
It strikes me as a bit like a prize fighter whose been at it too long. When he was young, Sugar Ray Robinson was virtually unbeatable - when he got older he was still good, but the aura of invincibility was gone and, although you could still see the magic in flashes, he ended up becoming a bit of a caricature of what he once was and lost to fighters he would have demolished in his prime.

The recent albums seem to me to be good in many ways but they are not as groundbreaking as the early stuff and do not have the cultural significance of the early stuff and are simply not as compelling. Also the later stuff tends to sound a bit too slick for my taste at times.

Also, there does seem to be some writers block. 3 albums of new songs in the last 20 years. Hardly prolific.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
salty

Quote
drbryant

Quote
salty

Quote
drbryant
. . . . .So, it would seem very strange to suggest that the group's legacy has been damaged by not stopping in 1972, when all of their most popular albums were released after that.

. . . . So I don't believe record sales necessarily have any correlation with legacy or legendary status.

I see. Well, how about reviews and awards? For many years, Rolling Stone Magazine had both a critics poll and a readers poll for album and single of the year. In addition to being the two best selling Stones albums, Some Girls and Tattoo You were named best album of the year by both fans and critics.

1978 - Best Album - Some Girls (critics)
1978 - Best Album - Some Girls (readers)
1978 - Best Single - Miss You (readers)

1981 - Best Album - Tattoo You (critics)
1981 - Best Album - Tattoo You (readers)
1981 - Best Single - Start Me Up (critics)
1981 - Best Single - Start Me Up (readers)

Their last studio album, A Bigger Bang, was runner-up in the Best Album of the Year for 2005.

Incidentally, the Stones' only Grammy Award was won in 1994 - Best Rock Album for Voodoo Lounge.

In greatest albums of all time lists, my observation is that the albums of the Stones which tend to feature most prominently are Beggars, Let It Bleed, Fingers and Exile.

For instance, in the Rolling Stone greatest albums of all time Exile is the highest ranked Stones album at no 7.

Let It Bleed is no 32. Beggars is no 58. Fingers is no 64. Aftermath is no 109. The Rolling Stones Now! is no 180.

This is all early stuff.

[www.rollingstone.com]

Voodoo Lounge, Bigger Bang etc are good records, but I believe most would say that it is not as good as the earlier stuff.

Even if you believe that "Some Girls" or "Tattoo You" is their best work, nonetheless those records are over 30 years old, so that is old stuff too really.

What have the Stones done in the last 30 years to match "Satisfaction" "Get Off Of My Cloud" "Wild Horses" "You Cant Always Get What You Want" "Jumpin Jack Flash" "Lets Spend The Night Together" "Brown Sugar" "Loving Cup" "Rocks Off" "Ruby Tuesday" etc?

Can you honestly say hand on heart that "Dirty Work" is as good as "Sticky Fingers" or that the songs on "Babylon" are as good as those on "Let It Bleed"?

At this point, you're just rewriting the question. The original question was whether the Stones diminished their legacy by carrying on past Exile. I pointed out that their most popular albums (in terms of sales) came after 72, you say "sales don't mean anything". I pointed out that in addition to selling more than any other Stones albums, Tattoo You and Some Girls were also voted by fans and critics as the best albums of 81 and 78, respectively, and that can only help one's legacy, and this is the response?

No one said that "Dirty Work" is better than "Sticky Fingers". But, let me tell you something. In 1981, other 60's classic rock legends were dead in the water; the older fans had moved on, and among the younger listeners, there was a backlash against older artists. Anyone remember the Who's Face Dances? Dylan's Shot of Love? McCartney II? How about Re.Ac.Tor? Keeping the Summer Alive? Every other 60's icon was out there struggling to make passable music and hurting their legacies - The Stones alone took Tattoo You and Start Me Up to the top of every chart in the world, and embarked on a massive stadium tour that broke all existing records - all supported by old fans and by a new generation of fans. That was a great achievement, and if you think that doesn't add to the legacy, then perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word. Seriously.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
jamesfdouglas
I would give them up until the 81/82 tour, including the albums. 20 years of being that good is nothing to sneeze at. The mid-80s are an unimportant blur, and they've been Vegas since then.

these last two shows haven't been all-out vegas. the new stones are more tahoe or reno....

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod
death has historically been a fabulous career move. it does have certain drawbacks that should be carefully considered, however.

you certainly save on groceries.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod
death has historically been a fabulous career move. it does have certain drawbacks that should be carefully considered, however.

you certainly save on groceries.

i hadn't considered that. but the drawbacks are often overlooked - like you have a smaller pool of potential opening acts at your next tour. and ppl won't take you seriously when a comeback album & tour are announced. little things like that.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod
death has historically been a fabulous career move. it does have certain drawbacks that should be carefully considered, however.

you certainly save on groceries.

i hadn't considered that. but the drawbacks are often overlooked - like you have a smaller pool of potential opening acts at your next tour. and ppl won't take you seriously when a comeback album & tour are announced. little things like that.

all good points. The 'dead' seem to be grateful though.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod
death has historically been a fabulous career move. it does have certain drawbacks that should be carefully considered, however.

you certainly save on groceries.

i hadn't considered that. but the drawbacks are often overlooked - like you have a smaller pool of potential opening acts at your next tour. and ppl won't take you seriously when a comeback album & tour are announced. little things like that.

all good points. The 'dead' seem to be grateful though.

sure, but they started out that way, so they had to be taken seriously. the "live dead" album did confound some critics, though. then when band members started actually dying, it was like "well, duh..."

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod
death has historically been a fabulous career move. it does have certain drawbacks that should be carefully considered, however.

you certainly save on groceries.

i hadn't considered that. but the drawbacks are often overlooked - like you have a smaller pool of potential opening acts at your next tour. and ppl won't take you seriously when a comeback album & tour are announced. little things like that.

all good points. The 'dead' seem to be grateful though.

sure, but they started out that way, so they had to be taken seriously. the "live dead" album did confound some critics, though. then when band members started actually dying, it was like "well, duh..."

it certainly shows commitment on the band's part. You have to appreciate the sense of dedication...or something.

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
stonesnow
No, because in carrying on for so long they keep resetting the bar for how long groups can go on playing rock music without embarrassment, which begins to define something of a legacy in itself.

So what do you call the A BIGGER BANG tour?

Quote
steel driving hammer

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
stonesnow
No, because in carrying on for so long they keep resetting the bar for how long groups can go on playing rock music without embarrassment, which begins to define something of a legacy in itself.

So what do you call the A BIGGER BANG tour?

I call it one of the best tours in History...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
steel driving hammer

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
stonesnow
No, because in carrying on for so long they keep resetting the bar for how long groups can go on playing rock music without embarrassment, which begins to define something of a legacy in itself.

So what do you call the A BIGGER BANG tour?

I call it one of the best tours in History...

i think you were influenced by the title. if it had been called the "out with a wimper tour" your attitude might be different.

Quote
StonesTod
i do not acknowledge posts that include the terms "on fire" or "weave"

Quote
Munichhilton
Hang on....I'm ok. It was nothing.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton
Hang on....I'm ok. It was nothing.

dang...I just got the fire extinguisher from the kitchen

Quote
StonesTod
why can't it be that when a band is playing well...we just say that they are playing well? ...or perhaps if they are playing very we say that they are playing very well. why must there be flames?

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
StonesTod
why can't it be that when a band is playing well...we just say that they are playing well? ...or perhaps if they are playing very we say that they are playing very well. why must there be flames?

For roasting marshmallows...

Keith was definitely sparking both nights!
Good job Keith