Tell Me :
Talk
Why ? Just for talking silly ? Naaaahh, that would be way too harsh. Just go wash your mouth with soap and everything is OK again
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
[Now only in a hurry:]
What many might learn from "this guy", is to be nuanced even when a sharp opinion is advanced. That is what I do like, also when I am in disagreement.
I am one of those, who, at any rate indirectly, have advocated the view that a scale down of the size of venues was hardly an alternative. If it could have been theoretically possible, much less it would be an option practically for a band that had been playing stadia for a while, and which had not at the time a welldefined artistic vision for themselves of where they should move in another direction. Their situation was after a more or less termination of the band's existence for some years involving disagreement between the two songwriters of the band for an even longer time as to where to go. In addition, the band probably had no tight fan base either, which they could rely on to take a new artistic turn. Theirs was a more loose customerlike audience of many generations. And they even seemed to have to refind the core of their own musical stance after a comparatively weak effort with their latest album effort DIRTY WORK.
All this means that the band had to reinvent themselves, especially as a live act, aiming towards the large venues, doing so in a professionalist turn. And if to refind their stance in the studio out of need, instead of developing a given stance further, may be seen as less daring, at the same moment during live concerts to recreate the studio songs of old as a novelty, was on the other hand a rather daring move. That is with all the premeditated arrangements with implied coordinaton.
In a prolonged earlier period following the era when they were among bands that contributed to define rock music, they had like a sponge absorbed impulses from what was contermporary rock music and subspecies. They had many times not copied such impulses, but instead worked up and integrated those impulses within their own approach and thereby developed that approach further.
Before 1989, the Stones, however, as I understand them, much needed to refind their approach before they could move into new possible directions. So when three of the four ensuing studio albums is considered as safe, the first two ought to be seen in such a light. I gladly pay hommage to you, GasLightStreet, on the point when many may be taking your side, would not, like what you do, make an exception for BRIDGES TO BABYLON as an album and for single tracks on the named other albums. In my understanding (probably not the band's own understanding) they did nor quite manage to refind themselves by STEEL WHEELS and after another pause had to go for a reinvention of themselves once again, in connection with VOODOO LOUNGE. Then with what the band chose to release, they had found their own feet again and were able to walk in somewhat a new direction with BRIDGES. One difficulty though all this later years, has been the reserved reception to the fresher material, where many customers and concertgoers alike have shown little interest. Confronted with newer songs that maybe not are outright great, but semi-great, those songs have not been recognized as such. I agree that A BIGGER BANG is clearly less adventurous than BRIDGES TO BABYLON, now following after a new protracted break, but it is possibly even better.
Seeing the film from Hyde Park, after having been there, and listening to the vinyl recording, is very impressing though, despite what might be said about repetition of setlists and omission of making a studio album. If it is nostalgia, it is still rock with lust and unabated presence and with power and strong colours.
[Writing time runs out before I am completely ready to post, I must risk it.]One late edit: Addition of a word fallen out.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-30 15:39 by Witness.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Terminology: The Vegas Era
Posted by:
Rolling Hansie
()
Date: December 30, 2013 11:08
Quote
rob51
Go ahead and crusify me
Why ? Just for talking silly ? Naaaahh, that would be way too harsh. Just go wash your mouth with soap and everything is OK again
-------------------
Keep On Rolling
Re: Terminology: The Vegas Era
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: December 30, 2013 14:19
Quote
jamesfdouglasQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Spud
It's got up sides and down sides but it's hard to see how they could have gone any other way.
Tne "modern era" Stones have kind of been victims of their own continued popularity and pulling power.
They couldn't really have downscaled, even if they'd wanted to.
Big Stadiums & Arenas required a big production...which required discipline and a certain amount of predictability.
It also resulted in the type of show that satisfies most of the paying customers. We're the minority who would be pleased by different things.
I disagree, in a sense, with some of that. They could have scaled down. They did for the No Security tour. At least in regard to venues. Big production - well they scaled it down for No Security as well. Even the 50 And Counting tour could be viewed as scaled down. But I doubt they actually need to have the giant dolls etc. That's all Mick's insecurity and thinking what the audience "wants". What was funny and new and interesting on the Steel Wheels tour had become so overdone and boring for Voodoo, those inflatables. OK it's creative and someone made it so it's art but... it's as bad as a TV commercial. What have some people said for years now? "Those giant Honky Tonk Women dolls were cool" instead of "They played Honky Tonk Women great on the 1989 tour"... people that I know anyway. They remember that crap. "That was cool". Uh huh.
I think Dancing With Mr D live on the 1973 tour is cool. But what do I know.
On the ABB tour they overplayed some places, like Chicago, which anyone but them could have figured out was not a good idea. The money they lost doing shows like that would force bands that deal with reality to adapt, make some better decisions. It's no wonder U2 broke the Stones ABB attendance and money record with their 360 tour - they didn't overstay their welcome! And their stage was no where near as ridiculous and allowed them to have more seats available.
Part of the Stones' choice to do what they've done could be viewed split - with the albums, they've done very safe things (not sure if the studio albums could fit the Vegas or the predictability tags but what they did put on the albums was mostly safe in regard to sounding like The Rolling Stones) while still managing to not have any hits but did only a few creative things (actual art, caring about the music) that people may have found more interesting if the albums were mostly creative. Love Is Strong and I Go Wild are good examples - I'm sure whatever Hot Rocks fans heard them as singles on the radio thought they were boring and bland, the Stones doing the Stones not very well. Stones by numbers. Not very good. "Ehhhh, they're doing the 'woo woo's in this song just like they did in Sympathy For The Devil. How original."
The other part of the split is... the tours were greatest hits safe. It can't be longevity. Because if it was then their recent albums, the ones from the last 25 years or whatever it is, would have songs played from them. Perhaps Mick started to notice just how many albums and songs they have that didn't make huge hits and figured maybe they should stick to the hits that they had since there's only a handfull of them and that can take up half the setlist...
Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge and A Bigger Bang are very safe albums with the odd track that showed that someone still had some actual creative interest in making art (Thru And Thru, Laugh, I Nearly Died, Slipping Away, Moon Is Up). Bridges To Babylon was the one artistic album, their most inventive LP since Undercover regarding doing something "different" ie art, creative, a bit mainstream yet 'different' for them, with only a few regular ol' Stones tracks on them (Flip The Switch, Lowdown, Too Tight).
It was also their best stage and stage production I think. And tour, regarding the Vegas Era. Nothing silly on that tour. The bridge was fantastic, the stage was elegant, very focused. They sounded good, nice set lists, new songs. They seem genuinely interested.
And yet the notion that they have to have a huge business just for playing music is beyond absurd. The ego of the Stones is way past Vegas even. There's more yes men on a Stones album production and tour than in Vegas!
I think they could have handled themselves better with some things but they're still going and drawing fans in to hear songs from the 1960s and early 70s so they did something right obviously ha ha.
I like this guy.
[Now only in a hurry:]
What many might learn from "this guy", is to be nuanced even when a sharp opinion is advanced. That is what I do like, also when I am in disagreement.
I am one of those, who, at any rate indirectly, have advocated the view that a scale down of the size of venues was hardly an alternative. If it could have been theoretically possible, much less it would be an option practically for a band that had been playing stadia for a while, and which had not at the time a welldefined artistic vision for themselves of where they should move in another direction. Their situation was after a more or less termination of the band's existence for some years involving disagreement between the two songwriters of the band for an even longer time as to where to go. In addition, the band probably had no tight fan base either, which they could rely on to take a new artistic turn. Theirs was a more loose customerlike audience of many generations. And they even seemed to have to refind the core of their own musical stance after a comparatively weak effort with their latest album effort DIRTY WORK.
All this means that the band had to reinvent themselves, especially as a live act, aiming towards the large venues, doing so in a professionalist turn. And if to refind their stance in the studio out of need, instead of developing a given stance further, may be seen as less daring, at the same moment during live concerts to recreate the studio songs of old as a novelty, was on the other hand a rather daring move. That is with all the premeditated arrangements with implied coordinaton.
In a prolonged earlier period following the era when they were among bands that contributed to define rock music, they had like a sponge absorbed impulses from what was contermporary rock music and subspecies. They had many times not copied such impulses, but instead worked up and integrated those impulses within their own approach and thereby developed that approach further.
Before 1989, the Stones, however, as I understand them, much needed to refind their approach before they could move into new possible directions. So when three of the four ensuing studio albums is considered as safe, the first two ought to be seen in such a light. I gladly pay hommage to you, GasLightStreet, on the point when many may be taking your side, would not, like what you do, make an exception for BRIDGES TO BABYLON as an album and for single tracks on the named other albums. In my understanding (probably not the band's own understanding) they did nor quite manage to refind themselves by STEEL WHEELS and after another pause had to go for a reinvention of themselves once again, in connection with VOODOO LOUNGE. Then with what the band chose to release, they had found their own feet again and were able to walk in somewhat a new direction with BRIDGES. One difficulty though all this later years, has been the reserved reception to the fresher material, where many customers and concertgoers alike have shown little interest. Confronted with newer songs that maybe not are outright great, but semi-great, those songs have not been recognized as such. I agree that A BIGGER BANG is clearly less adventurous than BRIDGES TO BABYLON, now following after a new protracted break, but it is possibly even better.
Seeing the film from Hyde Park, after having been there, and listening to the vinyl recording, is very impressing though, despite what might be said about repetition of setlists and omission of making a studio album. If it is nostalgia, it is still rock with lust and unabated presence and with power and strong colours.
[Writing time runs out before I am completely ready to post, I must risk it.]One late edit: Addition of a word fallen out.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-30 15:39 by Witness.
Re: Terminology: The Vegas Era
Posted by:
laertisflash
()
Date: December 30, 2013 14:50
Nice thoughts, Witness...
"If is nostalgia, it is still rock with lust and unabated presence and with power and strong colours". IMO, nostalgia it's not the one and only factor. Not even the basic factor, i could say...
"If is nostalgia, it is still rock with lust and unabated presence and with power and strong colours". IMO, nostalgia it's not the one and only factor. Not even the basic factor, i could say...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Dan , DeadHead4Ever , DiegoGlimmerStones , henrik87 , ManuelStones , Paddy , terukun , TumblinDice76
Guests:
1602
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10