Quote
treaclefingers

They put a life time of writing and recording albums into 9 or 10 years. How many albums in that time, 16, 17? Unbelievable. Think of any modern pop/rock/hip hop anything putting out that much material. Them and the Beatles and Dylan...I don't think any other 60s acts had that kind of track record. It's truly amazing the volume of output.

After EOMS they were done, creatively spent. They've had flashes of brilliance since but I think that's more to do with knowing what they do inside out than new flashes of creativity.

I agree with you.

Based on touring longevity...is it accurate to say that the Rolling Stones are the most successful and popular concert band of all time?

even without the fabled 1792 tour...

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
treaclefingers

They put a life time of writing and recording albums into 9 or 10 years. How many albums in that time, 16, 17? Unbelievable. Think of any modern pop/rock/hip hop anything putting out that much material. Them and the Beatles and Dylan...I don't think any other 60s acts had that kind of track record. It's truly amazing the volume of output.

After EOMS they were done, creatively spent. They've had flashes of brilliance since but I think that's more to do with knowing what they do inside out than new flashes of creativity.

I agree with you.

I don't disagree, but I think the aspect of not taking the time to keep it up could be a reason just as good as the lack of creativity.

Had they finished the Pathe Marconi-sessions, with loads of songs (and other sessions), we might have looked upon this differently.

The high life, probably boredom and drugs contributed to not being able to keep it up as they did in the 60s. Actually, they wrote more songs in the 70s, only they didn't finished a quarter of them...

1968 to 1978 was their best 10 years.They had their best albums,their best tours,and ironically ALL 3 guitarists(Brian Jones,Mick Taylor,Ronnie Wood)

1962-1984
From the beginning to Undercover



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-24 12:05 by 1962.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Actually, they wrote more songs in the 70s, only they didn't finished a quarter of them...

Give us the numbers.

How many songs written during 60's?
How many songs written during 70's?

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Actually, they wrote more songs in the 70s, only they didn't finished a quarter of them...

Give us the numbers.

How many songs written during 60's?
How many songs written during 70's?

Of course I don't have them, but based on the Pathe Marconi-sessions alone - with probably round 100 songs, the numbers on songs written in the 70s may be very high when adding the rest.

And when adding the fact that most of the songs they recorded up till 1965 were covers, I'll stand by my suggestion

Sketches or songs?

What great covers they are as well.

We are talking about 1963/4 - 1973/4, "more songs in the 70's" is splitting things in the wrong way.

Quote
His Majesty
Sketches or songs?

What great covers they are as well.

We are talking about 1963/4 - 1973/4, "more songs in the 70's" is splitting things in the wrong way.

No

A very high number of the songs on the "Place Pigalle"-bootleg are songs with vocals and lyrics, albeit not finished.

What do we got from 65-69 of outtakes? Not much, unfortunately.

When we add the ER-sessions, BAB sessions and the Exile/SG-sessions, there are lots of songs, not only sketches.

Of course the covers are brilliant! But we were talking about how many songs they wrote, weren't we?

The amount they wrote, released and their quality.

Exile is part of the 10 or so years run treacle is talking about and which I agreed with, some of those early 70's songs originate from the late 60's though.

So more a case of, what do we get from 1965 - 1972/73? A @#$%& lot of amazing songs and music!

What do we get from the later period you are focusing on, a lot of songs, but comparatively little in the way of amazing songs and music.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-24 14:45 by His Majesty.

Quote
kleermaker
1966 (Aftermath) - 1973 (GHS), ending with the glorious 1973 European Tour.

So you don't like TWFNO?

Quote
His Majesty
The amount they wrote, released and their quality.

Exile is part of the 10 or so years run treacle is talking about and which I agreed with, some of those early 70's songs originate from the late 60's though.

So more a case of, what do we get from 1965 - 1972/73? A @#$%& lot of amazing songs and music!

What do we get from the later period you are focusing on, a lot of songs, but comparatively little in the way of amazing songs and music.

It is true that they continued to write new material quite steadily throughout the 70's - and especially the Pathe Marconi sessions were very fruithful - but I think the fact they didn't 'finish' most of them - that is: make them good enough to be released - says something of the level of inspiration or focus. Could it be that they were more self-critical, but at the same it might been more like 'let's try enough of them, and see if any is good enough to make something out of it'. I am with His Majesty that if we talk creativity we should more focus on the actual results and quality of them, and not how many out-takes they needed to get a few decent ones. In the end, even though we bootleg fans might have our own bootleg favourites that 'never made it', the decision to finish a song properly, and finally release it, is an important phase in creative work, and includes determination and belief on the work.

But we have to also note the differences in recording routines that took along the years. In the early days when The Stones, The Beatles and Dylan were incredibly profilic and productive, the records were made damn very quickly and effectively (well, Dylan never changed his habits...). Time was money, and there was not much time for second-thoughts. Most of the songs were written prior the sessions, and if a song was considered worth a try, it was done at least to some kind of finished form. So the outcome is that there is not so many left-overs from those days in compared to latter days, and especially not half-baked sketches. (Actually The Stones seemingly returned to this habit in A BIGGER BANG...). We can only guess how many 'songs' were left to Mick and Keith's hotel room in 1964/67, and never even seen the light of studio... But still the released ones speaks volumes: by the end of 1967, after being recording artists for about four years, the Stones had released 72 original songs of their altogether 118 songs released by then!

As the years go by, both The Beatles and the Stones had the luxury to spend more time in studio, try there different things, work the songs further, wait the right 'feel', and in sometimes, even start the creative process - writing a song - within a studio... It is natural that there are more 'out-takes' from those days, since they also had the tendency to 'record everything'. I guess it is safe to say that THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES was teh first one to be recorded in this 'luxorious' way...

But I guess one striking feature in their creative impulses and work ethics was that as the years go by, even though the individual sessions themselves were longer than before, the 'holidays' they took started to be longer as well, and sometimes those spare times started to be counted in years instead of months. Harder and harder it was to get the guys back to studio for creative work...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-24 19:03 by Doxa.

Quote
His Majesty
The amount they wrote, released and their quality.

Exile is part of the 10 or so years run treacle is talking about and which I agreed with, some of those early 70's songs originate from the late 60's though.

So more a case of, what do we get from 1965 - 1972/73? A @#$%& lot of amazing songs and music!

What do we get from the later period you are focusing on, a lot of songs, but comparatively little in the way of amazing songs and music.

Agreed.

Quote
svt22

Quote
kleermaker
1966 (Aftermath) - 1973 (GHS), ending with the glorious 1973 European Tour.

So you don't like TWFNO?

Of course I do! And also Dance Litte Sister. And some pre 1966 also. But we are talking about favourite Stones period, so I have to be severe.

Quote
His Majesty
What do we get from the later period you are focusing on, a lot of songs, but comparatively little in the way of amazing songs and music.

Yes, they remain skilled craftsmen in their way, but nothing they've done post-Taylor has amazed me the way, say, "Gimmie Shelter" did the first time I heard it, or fascinated me the way Exile on Main Street does. Those are the highest of the high points, of course, but in the nearly forty years since they haven't come close.

Quote
blivet

Quote
His Majesty
What do we get from the later period you are focusing on, a lot of songs, but comparatively little in the way of amazing songs and music.

Yes, they remain skilled craftsmen in their way, but nothing they've done post-Taylor has amazed me the way, say, "Gimmie Shelter" did the first time I heard it, or fascinated me the way Exile on Main Street does. Those are the highest of the high points, of course, but in the nearly forty years since they haven't come close.

I wonder that after EXILE (or so) how many times they themselves have thought when trying some new individual song that 'yeah, we have a winner in our hands now, we can't miss it'. Especially in those 'big four' days, there is that determination in their doings that I cannot hear afterwards. We can call it an "inspiration" as well. They knew that they had something special when they were doing "Sympathy For The Devil", "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Gimme Shelter", "Honky Tonk Women", "Brown Sugar", "Tumbling Dice"... and in some cases they worked, if needed, really hard to 'get it right'.

Now when I listen to all those material rich SOME GIRLS or VOODOO LOUNGE sessions, yeah, there is quantity in them, but is there really an inspiration, that kind of self-secure feel that 'this is it'? I guess in the finished SOME GIRLS album there is some of that, but even there - no matter great the songs are - I don't hear that clear muse-driven determination I hear in their earlier works, especially in the 'big four'. The best songs are like lucky experiments based on great craftmanship - out of many tries - that turned out to be fine ("Miss You", "Beast of Burden", "Before Make Me Run", etc.). This tendency - with no such lucky results - has continued in their albums ever since.

[A terrible example: What they had, 40 - could be or 40 000 as well - songs/sketches from FORTY LICKS sessions, of which four of them made the collection album (and none of them very memorable, too say it mildly...)].

So I think the amount of studio out-takes does not necessarily speak in behalf of inspiration or creativity. By contrast, it could be that the focus is a bit lost, and a mark of a serious lack in the high-profile song-writing department. No real inspiration, but craftmenship. Listening to post-seventies albums pretty much verifies this point: not many real artistic high-lights, but damn much of rather mediocre material (by their high standards). But by contrast, they didn't need much material to compose their 60's smash singles or classical albums like BEGGARS BANQUET or LET IT BLEED. Why to waste bullets, if almost any seem to hit the target, since the focus is there?

Back to my initial point: I somehow have the feeling that not even them are feeling that kind of 'shit, this is damn @#$%& awesome' feeling in making music than they used to did. Probably Keith might do when making a cut like "How Can I Stop", but I am rather cynical if Jagger ever does...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-24 19:53 by Doxa.

For me there are 4 areas.....

'671/2 - '73
'63 - '66
'74 - '81
'83 - '03

__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-25 00:48 by NICOS.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
The amount they wrote, released and their quality.

Exile is part of the 10 or so years run treacle is talking about and which I agreed with, some of those early 70's songs originate from the late 60's though.

So more a case of, what do we get from 1965 - 1972/73? A @#$%& lot of amazing songs and music!

What do we get from the later period you are focusing on, a lot of songs, but comparatively little in the way of amazing songs and music.

Agreed.

+1

For me I like 80's/90's alot as I saw them alot then. 70s was good too.

Quote
svt22

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
The amount they wrote, released and their quality.

Exile is part of the 10 or so years run treacle is talking about and which I agreed with, some of those early 70's songs originate from the late 60's though.

So more a case of, what do we get from 1965 - 1972/73? A @#$%& lot of amazing songs and music!

What do we get from the later period you are focusing on, a lot of songs, but comparatively little in the way of amazing songs and music.

Agreed.

+1

A forum first! treacle, kleerie, svt and hm agreeing on the same thing.

I have always said I think The Rolling Stones output from 1965 to Exile On Main Street is one of rock/pop music greatest runs in terms of prolific songwriting and creativity.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
svt22

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
His Majesty
The amount they wrote, released and their quality.

Exile is part of the 10 or so years run treacle is talking about and which I agreed with, some of those early 70's songs originate from the late 60's though.

So more a case of, what do we get from 1965 - 1972/73? A @#$%& lot of amazing songs and music!

What do we get from the later period you are focusing on, a lot of songs, but comparatively little in the way of amazing songs and music.

Agreed.

+1

A forum first! treacle, kleerie, svt and hm agreeing on the same thing.

Let's stop at this pinnacle

Loved each era until around the mid 80's or so. They were unbelievable for 2 of their 5 decade career in my opinion and I'd still like to know what happened to them? Ran out of idea's I quess?

The general heyday of The Rolling Stones was the 15 year period from 1968-1982.

The writing heyday of Jagger/Richards was the 20 year period from 1962-1982.

The height of their live performances was the 10 year period from 1969-1978.

Quote
No Expectations
1962-2013

Ditto

Quote
Chacho
The general heyday of The Rolling Stones was the 15 year period from 1968-1982.

The writing heyday of Jagger/Richards was the 20 year period from 1962-1982.

The height of their live performances was the 10 year period from 1969-1978.

The general payday of The Rolling Stones was the 25 year period from 1989-2013 (and still counting ...).



- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-07 15:11 by Doxa.

^ Hah, good one.

<The height of their live performances was the 10 year period from 1969-1978.>

And how many 1966-67 live shows are you judging that by?

I think it pretty much goes without saying that the Stones' Golden Age was the Jimmy Miller years, 1968 to 1972, when Miller produced their albums. Their best touring years were 1969-1973, when Mick Taylor was in the band.

All else was either a prelude to the Golden Age (albums produced by Andrew Loog Oldham!) or a harkening back to that period.

As I die-hard Stones fan, I always hope for the second coming of the Golden Age...