Quote
stonehearted
I have the Voodoo Lounge album, which I have always enjoyed overall. I also have recently acquired the Voodoo Residue sessions, so I now see a bit of the album that could have been, which makes want to rename Don Was as Damn Was.

I also have a 2 CD stage mix concert from Oakland, California, recorded Halloween night 1994 (called "Voodoo at Halloween). Of the 25 songs in the set, 6 are off Voodoo Lounge--you'll never hear them attempt that again, though it would be nice if they would try.

And maybe they could tell Damn Was to stay home next time....

Probably not, but they did it occasionally on the following tour, with the songs from B2B (MSG):


Satisfaction
Let's Spend The Night Together
Flip The Switch
Gimme Shelter
When The Whip Comes Down
Might As Well Get Juiced
All Down The Line
Saint Of Me
Out Of Control
Miss You
-- Introductions --
Thief In The Night (Keith)
You Don't Have To Mean It (Keith)
Little Queenie (center stage)
I Just Wanna Make Love To You (center stage)
Like a Rolling Stone (center stage)
Sympathy For The Devil
Tumbling Dice
Honky Tonk Women
Start Me Up
Jumping Jack Flash
You Can't Always Get What You Want (encore)
Brown Sugar (encore)

taylor years

Quote
erbissell
Am i the only one that really digs the voodoo album and tour? I honestly put 94-95 right up there with most of their older stuff. Maybe its because I am young...

...no; you're not. Same here...
the VL-years are my favourite run in the '89-'13 era!

Much as I love it all, my favorite era is the 60´s. The Brian Jones years. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------

Literally 965 kilometers from being "Born in an Arctic zone".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-25 23:51 by LQ1977.

I like the Charlie Watts years



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-22 17:06 by Spud.

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa

Quote
erbissell
Am i the only one that really digs the voodoo album and tour? I honestly put 94-95 right up there with most of their older stuff. Maybe its because I am young...

...no; you're not. Same here...
the VL-years are my favourite run in the '89-'13 era!

the Vodoo Lounge Tour is a underrated fantastic tour

Quote
Godxofxrock9

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa

Quote
erbissell
Am i the only one that really digs the voodoo album and tour? I honestly put 94-95 right up there with most of their older stuff. Maybe its because I am young...

...no; you're not. Same here...
the VL-years are my favourite run in the '89-'13 era!

the Vodoo Lounge Tour is a underrated fantastic tour

It always surprised me thereafter how poorly the lead single (and subsequent singles did). They had a top 5 hit with Mixed Emotions in 1989, which was the beginning of 'stones by numbers' and yet 5 years later, and from that point on, they could not sell singles any more.

It's like they crossed the rubicon...aye yay yay.

Very much any period or era, provided Ronnie Wood is there!

C

Quote
Godxofxrock9
the Vodoo Lounge Tour is a underrated fantastic tour

Quite agree.

A long long year....2013

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

I'd say that was mine, too. However, i love the first Stones album THE ROLLING STONES, too. In my opinion it is as good as any debut album ever released by anybody. The Stones struggled to come close to it, though, with their following releases, until AFTERMATH. AFTERMATH truly was their great leap forward, in every possible way (and especially with regard to their songwriting, and the effectiveness of their musical diversity).

Black and Blue through Still Life

Roughly 1976-1982

Before WWIII and still some danger left. Keith was way cool. I was a little too young to connect with the band before about 1973.

1966 - 1973 From Aftermath to GHS they made their best music on albums and on tour in those seven or eight years or so. Albums and shows/tours after that are 2nd except for the Paradiso shows.

After 1973 it was funny enough still very interesting (in a way) because they became celebrities as stars instead of musicians.
In those days IORR, B&B, SG and TY were pretty good for various reasons, not really comparable but... they were now celebrities and heroes so...

1989 - 1995 I believe is also a very very good and interesting period because 1) of their come back after WW3 and 2) because of continuing without BW. And because all of a sudden they played their best shows in 25 years (the clubs shows with the two gigs at the Paradiso as probably their best shows I ever saw...).

Also: without BW they still could be very relevant (club shows '95, VL-tour, Stripped) and did not yet turned it into vegas; that totally happened with BtB imo... Since BtB they sometimes played good but not very very good like in 1973 or amazingly divine as they did at the Paradiso a couple of years before. It shocked me to see it was their choice to give that fantastic summer of 1995 a follow up with the disappointing BtB tour and all that came after that.

And they surprised me this last tour...it reminded me sometimes of their Urban Jungle tour (really better then SW tour), they sound good...unfortunately they did not do that in as much shows as we would like to.
Oh...and if you want to hear how good MJ is as a musician / guitar player listen to his play on MY in Glasto...first time in years I really enjoyed MY!!!

I'm quite fond of the era from Their Satanic Majesties Request to Undercover, that is 1967 - 1983.

Difficult to say... I am fascinated in everything they did during their first two couple of decades of existence, that is, when they were a 'living and breathing band', the 'most dangerous rock and roll band in the world' and they felt like being challenged by the ever-changing music world and whatever world surrounding them, and reacted upon that. Since that not so much. Entertainment act for conservative consumers looking for safe and sure 'good ol' time rock and roll'. Nothing wrong with that but that they ended up being more like Vegas act a'la Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin (instead of, say, Muddy Waters or Bob Dylan playing for good with a dignity, or like The Beatles, Led Zeppelin or Sex Pistols, stopping while they still were relevant), playing endlessly same old songs similar way in fancy cabaret stage for folks with too much money in their pockets and spare time in their lives, is not very exciting to my eyes. A memorable album here and then - or at least a great song once in a decade - would have made that different, but it did not happen.

But the Stones from 1962 to 1982 - the greatest and the most original story of ever written about rock and roll.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-22 21:43 by Doxa.

Ignoring my username, I will listen to anything Stones related from any era. My favourite era being obvious.........

What a drag it is gettin' old

1962-73

The Mick Taylor years...followed closely by Brian Jones..nothing after that.

I became fan very young in 65. So of course I loved it in 65/66.
But my fave era would be 68-73.For various reasons I even liked 74-76.

There have been good moments in later years as well but those in 60/70's are my ultimate favorite times.

I also love the 66-67 era. Really all of em.

I'm all over the map and listen to stuff from all eras but when push comes to shove i'd have to say 72-73.

Quote
Bellajane
The Mick Taylor years...followed closely by Brian Jones..nothing after that.

That's pretty much where I am. There's good and even great stuff on either side, but "Jumpin' Jack Flash" through Goat's Head Soup really speaks to me. The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band.

So what made the Stones less interesting after 72-73? The heavy drug scene or ??

Quote
Doxa

But the Stones from 1962 to 1982 - the greatest and the most original story of ever written about rock and roll.

- Doxa

Yep, that's the Stones in all their glory.
Except I would end it at 81.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-24 00:06 by stupidguy2.

Hi all.

IMHO:

From the 1962 to 2013 and... counting.

The best one: 1969-1978.

Favourite: 1968-1981 when they made their best albums. They lost it somehow with Undercover. Gone were the great ballads which made Tattoo You so remarkable. After that a couple of good songs on each album since.

Before that some great singles in the early-to-mid 60s, but lots of filler on their early albums.

Pete.

Quote
stonesrule
So what made the Stones less interesting after 72-73? The heavy drug scene or ??

Musically poorer.But less interesting? No.
Just your little problem with drugs.

It used to be sex, drugs and RocknRoll and I liked it.
But all the bad boys are gone by now and I have to hang here with all you good people . .

i like the change from the mid 60,s to the late 60,s so era 1 for me is 1966-69.

and then from 1978-83.

but also early 70,s 1971-74.

Quote
stonesrule
So what made the Stones less interesting after 72-73? The heavy drug scene or ??

I doubt all that weed, coke and heroin helped matters, but really I don't think anyone could have continued to produce at that level of quality for very long. Five or six years at the absolute top of your game is a pretty long time.

Quote
blivet

Quote
stonesrule
So what made the Stones less interesting after 72-73? The heavy drug scene or ??

I doubt all that weed, coke and heroin helped matters, but really I don't think anyone could have continued to produce at that level of quality for very long. Five or six years at the absolute top of your game is a pretty long time.

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.