Been thinking about people's general perception of the later stones years.
The albums (post 90 - SW) and why they wasnt as well received.
Do you think the massive leap in technology has not helped?. The rawer less polished natural feel of earlier albums which were liked.
I know Jagger been the techno freak he is would have found it irresistible to use better mixing..sound..recording...sampling (the big one) to change the overall sound as we know today?.
I like most of thier work unconditionally and it dont give excuses for tour after tour with the warhorses. But for example stripped was a bit different and better received as it was different although cleaned up.
I just wonder if an album had been made with some of these factors in mind whether it would have been more acclaimed. Some songs are bad on most albums..thats always going to be the case.
The latest two which are good are heavy in technology..
Dough

Quote
DoughboyUK
Been thinking about people's general perception of the later stones years.
The albums (post 90 - SW) and why they wasnt as well received.
Do you think the massive leap in technology has not helped?. The rawer less polished natural feel of earlier albums which were liked.
I know Jagger been the techno freak he is would have found it irresistible to use better mixing..sound..recording...sampling (the big one) to change the overall sound as we know today?.
I like most of thier work unconditionally and it dont give excuses for tour after tour with the warhorses. But for example stripped was a bit different and better received as it was different although cleaned up.
I just wonder if an album had been made with some of these factors in mind whether it would have been more acclaimed. Some songs are bad on most albums..thats always going to be the case.
The latest two which are good are heavy in technology..
Dough

When listening to the SW monitor mixes, without the all glitter and stuff that came in the mixing process later, I'd say that the technology in that case pulled the quality a bit in the wrong direction.

However, the quality of those albums weren't quite on par with either Undercover or Tattoo You.

You could debate this all day long but for me the reason is simple - the songs are just not that good any more. It happens to most performers that as they get older they lack the impetus of their early years.

The Stones are still great musicians and they can jump through the hoop, as it were, to great acclaim but in terms of innovation, that ended in around 1972.

I guess that once you become more settled in life, and perhaps even happier, then you lose that urgency out of which great art is created.

Mick and keith wrote great songs when they were living near each other in London and the south of France but trying to create heartfelt music when their lifestyles are so different and with all their family committments involved then it takes something away from that creative process.

There are exceptions to the rule - Dylan for one, Neil Young on occassion but generally the older one becomes the further they move from the flame of true inspiration.

Dylan for one.... not much happened there since Blood On The Tracks



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Dylan for one.... not much happened there since Blood On The Tracks

Time Out Of Mind (1997) is a good album.

Quote
Rockman
Dylan for one.... not much happened there since Blood On The Tracks

Blimey - Rockee, I guess you like the more melodic stuff. Desire was a magnificent album as was Infidels and Oh Mercy. And Slow Train Coming, Time Out of Mind, Modern Times and Tempest were pretty good too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-06 12:42 by Silver Dagger.

All of Dylan's last five albums are very strong. A huge part of his setlist consists of songs released after 1997.

....I've tried ... but I got nothin'....



ROCKMAN

A very good point Silver Dagger about the songwriting. Yes the better work was with those factors in mind...Close proximity living..sharing the same general day to day experiences...
I guess its harder living in differing parts of the world and different opinions to gell a meaningful same wavelength song together.

For my taste there is too much technology in the production of their albums since '89 and in those tours. There is a certain lack of feel, soul, warmth...hard to explain. But if you listen to the 60's and 70's albums and watching shows from these decades I think you know what I mean. As advanced these lightshows and props and video technologies are and how cool it may look sometimes, I totally prefer the rawer and natural shows from the past. Same with the albums. To me it sounds all too polished and compressed. Something's missing.

It's certainly a factor.
It's impacted all recorded music over the last 25 years or so but the sound and feel of a band like the Stones suffers more than most I think.

Recordings just aren't natural any more. There's no feel, no real dynamics [just loud and a bit louder ] no "soul".

Quote
DoughboyUK
A very good point Silver Dagger about the songwriting. Yes the better work was with those factors in mind...Close proximity living..sharing the same general day to day experiences...

Not to mention sharing the same women!!!

Quote
Rockman
....I've tried ... but I got nothin'....

Hey you..can't always get what you want...you just have to try again, Rockeee.

I do love time out of mind, but need to be in the right mood for it.

..... thanks for caring bloomer but I can't go back there again...
I find it one of the most depressing albums ... but hey I'm just
a snake handler......Now there's a line you can work baby ...HuhHuh



ROCKMAN

yea stones are moving with times if we like or not,stones would have finished if they lived as same in 60/70 i am happy how things have gone yea i would the music made like in the 60/70 but nothing remains the same.
After all its only rock-roll enjoy the ride

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
DoughboyUK
A very good point Silver Dagger about the songwriting. Yes the better work was with those factors in mind...Close proximity living..sharing the same general day to day experiences...

Not to mention sharing the same women!!!

Haha..yep some good tunes that era even from the women!

Quote
kish_stoned
yea stones are moving with times if we like or not,stones would have finished if they lived as same in 60/70 i am happy how things have gone yea i would the music made like in the 60/70 but nothing remains the same.
After all its only rock-roll enjoy the ride

Yep fully agree.
Given the choice 99% of the fans would have took what we have today than nothing.
And dont get me wrong the live performances are still world class and there are good songs and albums.
The voodoo lounge stadium was the most amazing spectacle I ever saw. Technology here for the visuals was a big plus imo. The big screens so all could see and the cobra. Even the story of how the album and tour came together was superb. Its not all bad with technology

Quote
Rockman
..... thanks for caring bloomer but I can't go back there again...
I find it one of the most depressing albums ... but hey I'm just
a snake handler......Now there's a line you can work baby ...HuhHuh

Yes, it is a bit of a downer, which is why I can't listen to it too often, but it's brillant downer.

I woulda pegged you for a trapeze artist...walking the high wire, but I'll work on it.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-28 18:19 by camper88.

I think technology make the Stones newer albums a bit duller (I'm a huge fan of 70s production values anyway), but I agree with Silver Dagger -- mostly it's the songwriting. It's a combination of the two, plus their playing is a bit more boring ... it's a matter of taste, but I think everyone in the Stones played better in '72 than they do now. Also, back then they had Nicky/Ian, Bill and Mick T.

I also think they would do better with more experimentation and spontaneity in the studio as well, but Mick and Keith's relation being what it is these days, there ain't a big chance for that.

Quote
DoughboyUK
Been thinking about people's general perception of the later stones years.
The albums (post 90 - SW) and why they wasnt as well received.
Do you think the massive leap in technology has not helped?. The rawer less polished natural feel of earlier albums which were liked.
I know Jagger been the techno freak he is would have found it irresistible to use better mixing..sound..recording...sampling (the big one) to change the overall sound as we know today?.
I like most of thier work unconditionally and it dont give excuses for tour after tour with the warhorses. But for example stripped was a bit different and better received as it was different although cleaned up.
I just wonder if an album had been made with some of these factors in mind whether it would have been more acclaimed. Some songs are bad on most albums..thats always going to be the case.
The latest two which are good are heavy in technology..
Dough

I actually think that the 'availability' of tracks, as in 8, 16, 24, 36 track recording studios (and I do not profess to know what was/is the number really!!!) meant The Stones felt the need to 'fill up' all available 'space' in a song. So much so that the songs since mid to late 70s just sound and feel too cluttered.

Compare the audible space in JJF or Tumbling Dice with the 'clutter' of, actually, my fave song if theirs SINCE the early 70's, It Won't Take Long. I LOVE THAT SONG, IT'S JUST TOO FULL!

Add to that the horribly compressed and LOUD production of IWTLong, and it sounds awful, ALMOST ruining the song...ALMOST!

Nothing is to blame except that some of people just like to whine, bitch and complain, especially about things which they are overly familiar with, as the saying goes (for some).... familiarity breeds contempt

And if anyone feels that statement is about them, that is on them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-06 16:51 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Nothing is to blame except that some of people just like to whine, bitch and complain, especially about things which they are overly familiar with, as the saying goes (for some).... familiarity breeds contempt

And if anyone feels that statement is about them, that is on them.

can it please be about me? i'm feeling under-utilized today...

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Nothing is to blame except that some of people just like to whine, bitch and complain, especially about things which they are overly familiar with, as the saying goes (for some).... familiarity breeds contempt

And if anyone feels that statement is about them, that is on them.

can it please be about me? i'm feeling under-utilized today...

No, sorry, you have been way too un-negative lately.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Nothing is to blame except that some of people just like to whine, bitch and complain, especially about things which they are overly familiar with, as the saying goes (for some).... familiarity breeds contempt

And if anyone feels that statement is about them, that is on them.

can it please be about me? i'm feeling under-utilized today...

No, sorry, you have been way too un-negative lately.

you are getting a little too familiar...

I think that the tracks on Exile are much more ´cluttered´ (and great sounding for that) than much of the more recent stuff.

Take One More Shot for example, which sounds so thin and weedy, and would greatly benefit from a couple of stoned buddies adding maracas, bongos, some murky piano in the background or whatever.

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
DoughboyUK
Been thinking about people's general perception of the later stones years.
The albums (post 90 - SW) and why they wasnt as well received.
Do you think the massive leap in technology has not helped?. The rawer less polished natural feel of earlier albums which were liked.
I know Jagger been the techno freak he is would have found it irresistible to use better mixing..sound..recording...sampling (the big one) to change the overall sound as we know today?.
I like most of thier work unconditionally and it dont give excuses for tour after tour with the warhorses. But for example stripped was a bit different and better received as it was different although cleaned up.
I just wonder if an album had been made with some of these factors in mind whether it would have been more acclaimed. Some songs are bad on most albums..thats always going to be the case.
The latest two which are good are heavy in technology..
Dough

I actually think that the 'availability' of tracks, as in 8, 16, 24, 36 track recording studios (and I do not profess to know what was/is the number really!!!) meant The Stones felt the need to 'fill up' all available 'space' in a song. So much so that the songs since mid to late 70s just sound and feel too cluttered.

Compare the audible space in JJF or Tumbling Dice with the 'clutter' of, actually, my fave song if theirs SINCE the early 70's, It Won't Take Long. I LOVE THAT SONG, IT'S JUST TOO FULL!

Add to that the horribly compressed and LOUD production of IWTLong, and it sounds awful, ALMOST ruining the song...ALMOST!

Today's music lacks of space and air. Too much limiting and compressed dynamics.

Not sure who's to blame though. For example Aaron Neville's latest album which was produced by Don Was sounds excellent. No abusive compression, music can breath, a real pleasure to listen to it.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Nothing is to blame except that some of people just like to whine, bitch and complain, especially about things which they are overly familiar with, as the saying goes (for some).... familiarity breeds contempt

And if anyone feels that statement is about them, that is on them.

can it please be about me? i'm feeling under-utilized today...

No, sorry, you have been way too un-negative lately.

you are getting a little too familiar...

But see.... unlike most, with me familarity breeds liking more,
because I (try to) only pay attention to things and people I like.

When I dont like something, I move on, I do not stick around
blathering on and on and on and on about how much I dont like it,
I dont spend much time trying to understand whats to balme for not
liking it or trying to determine when I stopped liking it or figuring
out when EXACTLY it started going down hill, and I certainly do not
spend any time looking at a microscope over analyzing it.... I find that way too anal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-06 17:13 by Max'sKansasCity.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Nothing is to blame except that some of people just like to whine, bitch and complain, especially about things which they are overly familiar with, as the saying goes (for some).... familiarity breeds contempt

And if anyone feels that statement is about them, that is on them.

can it please be about me? i'm feeling under-utilized today...

No, sorry, you have been way too un-negative lately.

you are getting a little too familiar...

But see.... unlike most, with me familarity breeds liking more,
because I (try to) only pay attention to things and people I like.

When I dont like something, I move on, I do not stick around
blathering on and on and on and on about how much I dont like it,
I dont spend much time trying to understand whats to balme for not
liking it or trying to determine when I stopped liking it or figuring
out when EXACTLY it started going down hill, and I certainly do not
spend any time looking at a microscope over analyzing it.... I find that way too anal.

not to mention all your wonderful charity work that you should talk about more often. you're really quite a wonderful fellow if you do say so yourself.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
Nothing is to blame except that some of people just like to whine, bitch and complain, especially about things which they are overly familiar with, as the saying goes (for some).... familiarity breeds contempt

And if anyone feels that statement is about them, that is on them.

can it please be about me? i'm feeling under-utilized today...

No, sorry, you have been way too un-negative lately.

you are getting a little too familiar...

But see.... unlike most, with me familarity breeds liking more,
because I (try to) only pay attention to things and people I like.

When I dont like something, I move on, I do not stick around
blathering on and on and on and on about how much I dont like it,
I dont spend much time trying to understand whats to balme for not
liking it or trying to determine when I stopped liking it or figuring
out when EXACTLY it started going down hill, and I certainly do not
spend any time looking at a microscope over analyzing it.... I find that way too anal.

not to mention all your wonderful charity work that you should talk about more often. you're really quite a wonderful fellow if you do say so yourself.

Please try to show me one time I talked about my charity work here.

That is personal to me and done anonymously, I may have said
others might consider doing some, as opposed to wasting time
talking about something they hate... but I never talked about what I do.