Well, the Stones are as much a product of the times they were/are in as anything else.

The 60s exploded a lot of stuff and then the late 60s and early 70s get more heavier and by the late 70s we have Disco and Hair Metal starting.

The 60s were the period where things happened, setting new trends, experimentation etc and by the late 70s not that much was happening.

The Stones come out of the 60s and that's when they were releasing a lot of different stuff, ie Ruby Tuesday and JJF that are still classics now.

Then the Stones seem to just ride the 70s Blues guitar thing and then by the time Ronnie Wood joins they have this sort of set formula thing and also chasing a few trends for a while like Disco and Punk until Keith got fed up with it I think.

These later periods of the Stones are nowhere near the 60s/early 70s Stones IMO and in some others opinions and some of it is just due to what was happening in the 60s in general.

Now we might have John Mayer playing a few Hendrix licks but in no way can John Mayer explode onto the scene like Hendrix did because the time was right for Hendrix in the 60s and the time is not right now except to just cop a few licks from what Hendrix has already done which is pretty boring IMO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-12-24 09:06 by howled.

Quote
rob51
Of course they can't do better! Look damn you they aren't young anymore and the show's that they've put on at their ages and the level of energy it takes to put on a proper Rollling Stones show already show's them to have given more than what us the ordinary fan has to expect from them and I think we should just be thankfull they could even pull off the stuff they did! Give them a break already.

I am suggesting a reading comprehension class for you.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
howled
If the Stones gave it up in 72 then they would have gone out on top like the Beatles did.

Gotta give the Stones credit for hitting 50, but they are just really a greatest hits band now and have been for decades and a lot of fans seem to be happy about that, so ok if that keeps them happy.

The Stones are still on top without leaving in 72. I don't think they've hurt their legacy by carrying on any more than Mac's and Ringo's touring hurts the Beatles. As far as their limited set lists, until Brooklyn I hadn't seen them since Steel Wheels so it's not fair to me access what's played out. I will say I've watched the Allman Brothers morph and reject their standards and today they're are a band who's lost their true sound, sliding through covers and obscure Allman related stuff leaving fans begging for Ramblin' Man. The Stones will have to adjust somewhat to the effect UTUBE has on their program, thanks to it the audience needs some radical stuff to be surprised at each show, like rock hanukkah.

The fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades and especially performing as they did at 50 has done nothing but enhance their legacy. Now, they can further enhance it by producing one last great album. Which of course they will.

They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

Really, Voodoo Lounge was great, Bigger Bang was too, although it didn't have an arena anthem such as Start Me Up. As far as live, the moments are just fewer as would be expected.

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

You obviously have some thoughts swimming around in your head that have nothing to do with reality. Over a fifty year span they have delivered with amazing consistency. Did they have a bad show here and there or a few bumps in the road? Probably, but to say they have been anything but consistent overall is just plain ludicrous. And ignorant,

Quote
slew
I can't see them playing a lot of deep cuts and the deep cuts are going to send a lot of the audience to the bathroom. Not me and my fellow IORR's but the casual fans that go which is most of them.

I don't think anyone moticed any bathroom breaks during Going Down or Who Do You Love.

They can do better by playing larger venues in different cities with lower prices so that more people have the opportunity to see them live.

The O2 gig, in the time I've been following them (94) is the best I've witnessed. I left the venue buzzing.... for days! I'm in a place where i've thought, "can that bettered?", "shall I leave it at that for Stones shows"...
IMO, they should leave it at that, it would be all too easy to revert to phoning it in if they start the bandwagon.

I can't understand why the Stones hasn't done a decent album since Some girls. They are still a good live band but on record the magic is long gone. Some say it has to do with Mick Taylor leaving the band, but I don't know. Both Beggars Banquet and Some girls are good albums.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

You obviously have some thoughts swimming around in your head that have nothing to do with reality. Over a fifty year span they have delivered with amazing consistency. Did they have a bad show here and there or a few bumps in the road? Probably, but to say they have been anything but consistent overall is just plain ludicrous. And ignorant,

I'm just observering fact. You are observing opinion.

Quote
shadooby

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

Really, Voodoo Lounge was great, Bigger Bang was too, although it didn't have an arena anthem such as Start Me Up. As far as live, the moments are just fewer as would be expected.

Voodoo and A Bigger Bang were great? In what context? Nobody will mistake those albums as classic (great) Stones albums, especially music historians. To think they're great is one thing - they're great to you because you like them etc; knowing their place in their history is what it's about and neither of those albums hold up or stand up to Beggars/Bleed/Fingers/Exile and the other two. Even the Stones themselves basically acknowledge that.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
shadooby

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

Really, Voodoo Lounge was great, Bigger Bang was too, although it didn't have an arena anthem such as Start Me Up. As far as live, the moments are just fewer as would be expected.

Voodoo and A Bigger Bang were great? In what context? Nobody will mistake those albums as classic (great) Stones albums, especially music historians. To think they're great is one thing - they're great to you because you like them etc; knowing their place in their history is what it's about and neither of those albums hold up or stand up to Beggars/Bleed/Fingers/Exile and the other two. Even the Stones themselves basically acknowledge that.

what??? you got me rocking is the "gimme shelter" of voodoo. everyone knows that...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
shadooby

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

Really, Voodoo Lounge was great, Bigger Bang was too, although it didn't have an arena anthem such as Start Me Up. As far as live, the moments are just fewer as would be expected.

Voodoo and A Bigger Bang were great? In what context? Nobody will mistake those albums as classic (great) Stones albums, especially music historians. To think they're great is one thing - they're great to you because you like them etc; knowing their place in their history is what it's about and neither of those albums hold up or stand up to Beggars/Bleed/Fingers/Exile and the other two. Even the Stones themselves basically acknowledge that.

what??? you got me rocking is the "gimme shelter" of voodoo. everyone knows that...

I thought only I knew that. You mean it's not a secret anymore?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
shadooby

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

Really, Voodoo Lounge was great, Bigger Bang was too, although it didn't have an arena anthem such as Start Me Up. As far as live, the moments are just fewer as would be expected.

Voodoo and A Bigger Bang were great? In what context? Nobody will mistake those albums as classic (great) Stones albums, especially music historians. To think they're great is one thing - they're great to you because you like them etc; knowing their place in their history is what it's about and neither of those albums hold up or stand up to Beggars/Bleed/Fingers/Exile and the other two. Even the Stones themselves basically acknowledge that.

what??? you got me rocking is the "gimme shelter" of voodoo. everyone knows that...

I thought only I knew that. You mean it's not a secret anymore?

in the decades to come, steel wheels, voodoo, bridges and bang will be recognized as the "gen-you-wine big four," leaving others to wonder why anyone ever considered the 68-72 period to be superior.

Poor Dirty Work. Left in the dark once again.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Poor Dirty Work. Left in the dark once again.

dirty work is the "gen-you-wine big four's" satanic majesties...or something. misunderstood; ahead of its time; forgotten.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
shadooby

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

Really, Voodoo Lounge was great, Bigger Bang was too, although it didn't have an arena anthem such as Start Me Up. As far as live, the moments are just fewer as would be expected.

Voodoo and A Bigger Bang were great? In what context? Nobody will mistake those albums as classic (great) Stones albums, especially music historians. To think they're great is one thing - they're great to you because you like them etc; knowing their place in their history is what it's about and neither of those albums hold up or stand up to Beggars/Bleed/Fingers/Exile and the other two. Even the Stones themselves basically acknowledge that.

Voodoo and A Bigger Bang (and I would add Stripped) are great in any context OTHER THAN when compared to Beggars/Bleed/Fingers/Exile - which is basically the best four-album run in the history of recorded music.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
shadooby

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

Really, Voodoo Lounge was great, Bigger Bang was too, although it didn't have an arena anthem such as Start Me Up. As far as live, the moments are just fewer as would be expected.

Voodoo and A Bigger Bang were great? In what context? Nobody will mistake those albums as classic (great) Stones albums, especially music historians. To think they're great is one thing - they're great to you because you like them etc; knowing their place in their history is what it's about and neither of those albums hold up or stand up to Beggars/Bleed/Fingers/Exile and the other two. Even the Stones themselves basically acknowledge that.

Voodoo and A Bigger Bang are great in any context OTHER THAN when compared to Beggars/Bleed/Fingers/Exile - which is basically the best four-album run in the history of recorded music.

you can't add stripped. the rules are explicit and clear on this point. i deleted it for you here and i won't say another word about it.

I disagree, B2B is but VL and ABB are pretty boring at least in their current format, they would certainly have worked better as 12 or even 10 song albums.

Certainly. Context, not format, makes the quality of an album. The last three albums certainly could be/are better with less songs. However, that still does not make them nor include them in the class of 'great Stones albums'. That room is full.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

You obviously have some thoughts swimming around in your head that have nothing to do with reality. Over a fifty year span they have delivered with amazing consistency. Did they have a bad show here and there or a few bumps in the road? Probably, but to say they have been anything but consistent overall is just plain ludicrous. And ignorant,

I'm just observering fact. You are observing opinion.

What I am observing is the return of Skippy/WeLoveToPlayTheBlues! Must be off tour?

I think a great tour would be similar to the 5 shows - but - have MT play the whole show. I do not think it is a battle of egos any more. For the longer hall it would be good to have three guitars. MT seems into this. It could be his retirement. I too would loose the guest stars, it's nice but only for special occations when you need them to bring in more people (TV).

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

You obviously have some thoughts swimming around in your head that have nothing to do with reality. Over a fifty year span they have delivered with amazing consistency. Did they have a bad show here and there or a few bumps in the road? Probably, but to say they have been anything but consistent overall is just plain ludicrous. And ignorant,

I'm just observering fact. You are observing opinion.

What I am observing is the return of Skippy/WeLoveToPlayTheBlues! Must be off tour?

User name has been deactivated.

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern
Something can certainly be said for going out on top. But can the Stones do even better? After all, they only did five shows. Didn't Mick once say he needs about 20 shows or more into a tour for the band to really begin to function at peak efficiency?

There is no denying that they performed at an extremely high level for each of the five recent shows. But can they do even better?

I dont know if they can do any better on stage - those 5 shows were really good and they still got it.

I think your asking the wrong question.
The right question in my mind is - Can they do more. ( not better, no, i dont think so - but they could do more)

And what I mean is - will there be a new Stones studio album with brand new songs, more interesting documentaries,etc - but on stage, I think they played to the best of their abilities. They cant play any better than that - it sounded great, so I'm not complaining, I just hope they do more.

Can they do better? I'd like to think so (definitely maybe) Have Taylor rejoin and have better set-lists, play faster tempo's etc.

Would they even try to do better? I highly doubt it. I think that fire in their bellys died out many years ago.

Quote
stonesnow

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
JumpinJackOLantern

Quote
GasLightStreet
They won't make 'one last great album' - that's already happened - it's called Tattoo You. Played at a high level under what rules? A lot of people think they haven't performed great since 1973 or 1978 or 1981. It's subjective, even for flag waving fanboys like yourself. A 'fact that they have performed consistently at a high level for decades'? Really? That's fantastically hilarious. Having the odd show does not fit the definition of 'consistent'.

They've played pretty good over the years - for how they've been at that point. But compared to the 1970s? Probably not. And on and on. It's not like a painting that's never been unwrapped. Doesn't work that way.

You obviously have some thoughts swimming around in your head that have nothing to do with reality. Over a fifty year span they have delivered with amazing consistency. Did they have a bad show here and there or a few bumps in the road? Probably, but to say they have been anything but consistent overall is just plain ludicrous. And ignorant,

I'm just observering fact. You are observing opinion.

What I am observing is the return of Skippy/WeLoveToPlayTheBlues! Must be off tour?

User name has been deactivated.

I think he was embarrassed by the Saints performance this year.

Quote
gotdablouse
I disagree, B2B is but VL and ABB are pretty boring at least in their current format, they would certainly have worked better as 12 or even 10 song albums.

I just played side 1 of Voodoo Lounge (Love is Strong, You Got Me Rocking, Sparks Will Fly) and it sounded amazing. Stones fans have a hard time putting things in perspective, especially at the time an album is released. I look at it this way - I can't think of too many other albums from 1994 that I would prefer over Voodoo Lounge - REM's Monster?

Quote
drbryant

Quote
gotdablouse
I disagree, B2B is but VL and ABB are pretty boring at least in their current format, they would certainly have worked better as 12 or even 10 song albums.

I just played side 1 of Voodoo Lounge (Love is Strong, You Got Me Rocking, Sparks Will Fly) and it sounded amazing. Stones fans have a hard time putting things in perspective, especially at the time an album is released. I look at it this way - I can't think of too many other albums from 1994 that I would prefer over Voodoo Lounge - REM's Monster?

Very good point. If albums like VL. B2B or ABB had been released by new or obscure artists, folks would have thought them to be outstanding... and the best thing since the Rolling Stones