Coming to think of it, if they want to be more contemporary, maybe they should listen a bit more to Frank Black. Although I suppose he falls into the "indie / post-punk" category, he is an interesting songwriter and his solo-albums (especially with the Catholics) are really fresh and fun to listen to (e.g. Pistolero or Dogs in the Sand).

Quote
matxil
A terrible terrible song. One of their worst. I guess they tried to imitate the lousy new-wave/grunge/indie type of rubbish rock we've been hearing since the eighties. (Lame chord progressions, lame rhythm, dull guitar sound, weak melodies).
It sort of confirms my theory that one of the reasons why the Stones haven't really made any great record after Tattoo You is because there is no other music around to be inspired by. In the 60s and 70s there were plenty of other bands with interesting sounds or approaches, but the last time they got inspired in a good way by what was going around was at the end of the 70s, ironically, both by disco and punk.
But since then, there's only been whining new-wave, even more whining grunge and even more more whining indie, all with a sauce of monotonous distortioned guitars and sad singers who seem to tired too sing.

Good point. Be the contemporary music good or not, one reason can be that the Stones couldn't any longer convincingly adapt to the new trends, or update their own sound to fit to them (after disco and punk). Maybe there were certain natural limits in their musical scope, stemming from the rhythm and blues, which simply didn't allow them to cope with the new musical trends any longer. And the guys also got old...

I think one reason for Jagger's solo career (attempt) was that of being skeptical (or realistic) about the chances of the Stones being able to transform themselves enough to suit to the times. But Jagger couldn't do that convincingly alone either.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
matxil
A terrible terrible song. One of their worst. I guess they tried to imitate the lousy new-wave/grunge/indie type of rubbish rock we've been hearing since the eighties. (Lame chord progressions, lame rhythm, dull guitar sound, weak melodies).
It sort of confirms my theory that one of the reasons why the Stones haven't really made any great record after Tattoo You is because there is no other music around to be inspired by. In the 60s and 70s there were plenty of other bands with interesting sounds or approaches, but the last time they got inspired in a good way by what was going around was at the end of the 70s, ironically, both by disco and punk.
But since then, there's only been whining new-wave, even more whining grunge and even more more whining indie, all with a sauce of monotonous distortioned guitars and sad singers who seem to tired too sing.

Good point. Be the contemporary music good or not, one reason can be that the Stones couldn't any longer convincingly adapt to the new trends, or update their own sound to fit to them (after disco and punk). Maybe there were certain natural limits in their musical scope, stemming from the rhythm and blues, which simply didn't allow them to cope with the new musical trends any longer. And the guys also got old...

I think one reason for Jagger's solo career (attempt) was that of being skeptical (or realistic) about the chances of the Stones being able to transform themselves enough to suit to the times. But Jagger couldn't do that convincingly alone either.

- Doxa

As one who happens to like very much some of the, originally, indie music from the '80s and early '90s, for instance the Pixies, what I have heard from Sonic Youth, or music from bands of the shoegazer scene, the point is not so good to me. (From reasons outside music, I completely stopped following that or other scene after the early '90s).

Apart from that, I shall abstain from saying so much against TATTOOO YOU. However, the best and latest great album post-EXILE to me is not TATTOO YOU, but UNDERCOVER, which is even slightly better than EMOTIONAL RESCUE.

If the music after UNDERCOVER at its best with BRIDGES TO BABYLON or A BIGGER BANG is semi-great rather than great, I am probably only one to disagree that it is poor. Even weaker STEEL WHEELS (weaker than medium good VOODOO LOUNGE) has its moments, and DIRTY WORK's somewhat marked weaker material is on the other hand for some songs rather OK played to my non-musician ears.

And when the Stones might have become more reserved at assimilating newer impulses from the music scene outside, within which to develop own music ideas and thereby create new music of their own, my hypothesis is rather that this is due to the reception of especially UNDERCOVER among the Stones' customers and audiences. The band lost much of their incentives to work out their song ideas to full extent, even if they from time to time has anew tried to do that in a lesser scale (first and foremost as to BRIDGES TO BABYLON).And I may allude to the problems with the band to work as a band in the studio.

And what post do I read then?

Quote
matxil
Coming to think of it, if they want to be more contemporary, maybe they should listen a bit more to Frank Black. Although I suppose he falls into the "indie / post-punk" category, he is an interesting songwriter and his solo-albums (especially with the Catholics) are really fresh and fun to listen to (e.g. Pistolero or Dogs in the Sand).

For who else is Frank Black, even if I did not follow up his career later on, than the Pixies' Black Francis!!! However, I am ready now to do that. I saw the Pixies when DOOLITTLE was new, but had later on for some period somewhat lesser possibility to use money and missed the opportunity to buy TROMPE LE MONDE, which I bought some months ago. Once again, that album was meant by me to be listened to this evening before I read this. (But thank you, matxil, for the reference to and recommendation of Black Frank's other releases.)

Last edit: Addition of an oversprung word.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-17 00:06 by Witness.

I think SW is their last great album, Witness. I look past the production, and cherish the songs and the variety, as I'm sure you do with Undercover.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think SW is their last great album, Witness. I look past the production, and cherish the songs and the variety, as I'm sure you do with Undercover.

However, in fact, I don't look past the production of UNDERCOVER, I appreciate it. I do like the sound. ("Should" I not?)

Quote
Witness

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think SW is their last great album, Witness. I look past the production, and cherish the songs and the variety, as I'm sure you do with Undercover.

However, in fact, I don't look past the production of UNDERCOVER, I appreciate it. I do like the sound. ("Should" I not?)

IMO, yes you should. However, those echo machines sound very dated today. Would you appreaciate the Stones going back to that sound?

BTW, Feel On Baby is one of my all time favourites.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-16 21:25 by DandelionPowderman.

If they were to make a new studio album, I'd prefer them to assimilate new ideas once again. However, I have given up the hope for new band releases from the Stones. My remaining hope is for individual releases, in case.

I don't think about UNDERCOVER as dated when I listen to it.

For all I know, releases of the '90s shoegazer band Slowdive that I do like, and saw live twice in different years, are dated to some. I don't know the music scene from the last 15-20 years. However, I might take up listening to newer bands from that period, which in some way may mean a continuation from bands that I have liked and still like from the preceding 10 -15 years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-16 21:38 by Witness.

Quote
Witness
And when the Stones might have become more reserved at assimilating newer impulses from the music scene outside, within which to develop own music ideas and thereby create new music of their own, my hypothesis is rather that this is due to the reception of especially UNDERCOVER among the Stones' customers and audiences. The band lost much of their incentives to work out their song ideas to full extent, even if they from time to time has anew tried to that in a lesser scale (first and foremost as to BRIDGES TO BABYLON).And I may allude to the problems with the band to work as a band in the studio.

I agree and disagree. I agree with that UNDERCOVER might be the last album the Stones tried seriously update their sound. TATTOO YOU, by contrast, was a rather retro album by the day's standards. Besides that particular year was a rather silent year in music, after the punk/new wave movement, there was a gap before the 80's really took place with new sounds. Somehow TATTOO YOU, and especially tradiotional sounding "Start Me Up" hit nicely there. But things changed rapidly soon, and by the time of UNDERCOVER the whole scene was different, the Stones trying to keep up with the times as well. To an extent, this continued still in DIRTY WORK - for example, the band decided to leave the "roll" element out of their sound and follow the hard rock scene ("One Hit", "Winning Ugly"), or release Casio pop ("Back to Zero"), etc. The bootleg out-take fans knows that there were good 'rootsie' and 'soulful' material in the can, but seemingly that wasn't suitable stuff to make the album in 1986.

However, it looked like that the people weren't too impressed with the results. Here comes the thing I disagree with. Namely, even though it is true that the Stones fanbase turned out to be rather conservative, and missed the good old days of EXILE and SOME GIRLS, of which TATTOO YOU still a few years earlier gave a fresh recollection, I cannot give a free pass to the band for being pushed to go retro, just to please the taste of their potential audience. Or to accuse their audience for the lame reception of UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK, which thereby caused taking the 'nostalgic turn'. I mean, what is the cause and effect here? Their not so convincing updated music or the conservatist taste of their audience? Who to blame? I mean, just to please the taste of their potential audience, by taking the safe route musically, is like giving up creatively, taking their own destiny out of their own hands, and being dictated by the supposed expectations of their audiences. Is that the behaviour of the 'greatest rock and roll band in the world'? This pragmatic, non-challenging attitude is later expressed in Jagger's excuse for releasing new music at all, or at least playing it live, because "people want to listen only the old hits".

Actually I don't even try to name the guilty ones here. My take simply is that the Stones lost the muse during the 80's - the one that had forced them to reinvent their sound, and create exciting music, through the 60's and the 70's. If they simply have done better music, everything might have been different. But they simply couldn't do that any longer, no matter how much they tried. And soon they even stopped trying. Thankfully for them, by the end of the 80's and in early 80's, the whole rock scene made a kind of 'nostalgic turn', and for the Stones - the "real thing", the biggest representative of the classic rock days - was enough just to be the classical sounding Stones. There was no any reason to 'reinvention'; the less of that, the better. There was a huge demand for them (to anything they represented from the legendary 60's and 70's). Especially VOODOO LOUNGE was a perfect album for to please that demand. And it sold more than any album since TATTOO YOU. That their potential audience was not so young any longer, that is, was rather wealthy by then, didn't hurt either. The big money was there, in touring, and pleasing those expectations, took the 'forced' conservatism into a new level altogether. Soon releasing any music, not even 'Stones-by-numbers' ones, was not such a big deal at all.

But had the Stones chance at all in the 80's? That is, whatever they had done, wouldn't have make it? I don't know. I tend to think that the tricks of the day started to be so far from their own roots in blues that it was impossible for these old dogs to learn them (Keith seemingly was more aware of that, Mick not so much). Perhaps that was a good thing.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-16 22:53 by Doxa.

Don't have time to read everything, Doxa. But Winning Ugly and hard rock in the same sentence?

Waiting for your fellow countryman, Michael Monroe, to hit the stage here

Quote
Witness
If they were to make a new studio album, I'd prefer them to assimilate new ideas once again. H

Me too. Because I honestly think that that's the only source of inspiration the band ever have had. It doesn't matter if the new ideas derive from latest hit record topping the charts or from a Robert Johnson album. To me the Stones are true artists in the sense that they naturally seek for new ways of self-description. The 'Stones-by-numbers' - albums like VOODOO LOUNGE and A BIGGER BANG - is not that - it's 'been there done that' for them. No real muse or drive. The dilemma is that it seems to be pretty hard for them assimilate new ideas; it looks like that their repertuare is complete by now. I mean, listening to, say, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry or Robert Johnson again does not inspire them any longer; they have milked out that musical source. With that they have perfected the whole idea of rock and roll. And the recent musical trends seem to be out of their reach - that seems to be the case since the days of UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK, as I argued above. Since the disco and punk days, it is hard for them to make convincing results by 'updating' their sound, like, for example, indie-sounding "Stealing My Heart" shows.

Let's say that I pretty well understand why they are not too keen on hitting studio these days.

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't have time to read everything, Doxa. But Winning Ugly and hard rock in the same sentence?

Waiting for your fellow countryman, Michael Monroe, to hit the stage here

To me it sounds one stupid form of mid-80's pop-oriented plastic hard rock... Okay, not typical, and not very hard, but no swing there...

"Rock star" Monroe is busy doing VOICE OF FINLAND entertainment crap...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-16 23:27 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
If they were to make a new studio album, I'd prefer them to assimilate new ideas once again. H

Me too. Because I honestly think that that's the only source of inspiration the band ever have had. It doesn't matter if the new ideas derive from latest hit record topping the charts or from a Robert Johnson album. To me the Stones are true artists in the sense that they naturally seek for new ways of self-description. The 'Stones-by-numbers' - albums like VOODOO LOUNGE and A BIGGER BANG - is not that - it's 'been there done that' for them. No real muse or drive. The dilemma is that it seems to be pretty hard for them assimilate new ideas; it looks like that their repertuare is complete by now. I mean, listening to, say, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry or Robert Johnson again does not inspire them any longer; they have milked out that musical source. With that they have perfected the whole idea of rock and roll. And the recent musical trends seem to be out of their reach - that seems to be the case since the days of UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK, as I argued above. Since the disco and punk days, it is hard for them to make convincing results by 'updating' their sound, like, for example, indie-sounding "Stealing My Heart" shows.

Let's say that I pretty well understand why they are not too keen on hitting studio these days.

- Doxa

Now limited by solely having a mobile to write on, only this: I wonder if there might be some further kinds of "folk music" genres, broadly speaking, which they have not entered or not entered so much, that they might utilize. That is their expertise, and there might in case lie their possibility. To base some type of rock music on such genres as well as themselves make some songs within those genres. If so, they might be creative. With that as a core for an album and inspired by such, they might even add some songs from genres that they have used before, and the different context might make those songs emerge fresh, too.

I dont like this song.

Quote
matxil
A terrible terrible song. One of their worst. I guess they tried to imitate the lousy new-wave/grunge/indie type of rubbish rock we've been hearing since the eighties. (Lame chord progressions, lame rhythm, dull guitar sound, weak melodies).
It sort of confirms my theory that one of the reasons why the Stones haven't really made any great record after Tattoo You is because there is no other music around to be inspired by. In the 60s and 70s there were plenty of other bands with interesting sounds or approaches, but the last time they got inspired in a good way by what was going around was at the end of the 70s, ironically, both by disco and punk.
But since then, there's only been whining new-wave, even more whining grunge and even more more whining indie, all with a sauce of monotonous distortioned guitars and sad singers who seem to tired too sing.

Brilliant, matxil! I agree 100% with everything you wrote here.

Drew

Where as UNDERCOVER was the proper follow up to EMOTIONAL RESCUE and found the band being inventive, creative and willing to do some new things with results that vary, to me anyway, from good to really cool, DIRTY WORK is the sound of an old band attempting to fit in with what was current - which a lot of older artists did with similar results - and failing brilliantly.

Why is it that the younger artists from that time don't sound as bad as the Stones do on DIRTY WORK, regardless of the songs? Maybe they didn't over do it or they totally over did it and made it work?

Quote
Witness
Now limited by solely having a mobile to write on, only this: I wonder if there might be some further kinds of "folk music" genres, broadly speaking, which they have not entered or not entered so much, that they might utilize. That is their expertise, and there might in case lie their possibility. To base some type of rock music on such genres as well as themselves make some songs within those genres. If so, they might be creative. With that as a core for an album and inspired by such, they might even add some songs from genres that they have used before, and the different context might make those songs emerge fresh, too.

Witness, I like your idea, but the problem (as I see it) is that the Glimmer Twins are no longer intersted in creating interesting, vital new music. Each of them has other interests that they find far more gratifying (spending time with children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, producing films, performing their songs in concert, counting their money, reading history books, growing lemon trees, etc etc). And this is compounded by the fact that their creative partnership -- and with it the remarkable creative muse that generated so much wonderful music -- long ago dissolved (in all but name). And to top it off, Mick and Keith know that they can get away with crap like Stealing My Heart because no one really cares anymore except us die-hard fans.

Drew

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I really like Keys To Your Love. Should have been the single, imo. It's up there with No Use In Crying.

Thanks for reminding me ... if there's any song worse than Stealing My Heart, it's Keys To Your Love. Losing My Touch is slightly better than both of those.

You like fake-garage, I like soul. Fair enough...

Okay, but we were discussing these that terrible songs ...

It was singular, until you added Keys To Your Love to the mix. Really bad, to compare it to No Use In Crying is an incredible stretch

So my comment stands:
Okay, but we were discussing these terrible songs ...

It's a non event for me. Certainly sounds completely outta place on a disc jam packed with classics spare the other three newbies at the time.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Where as UNDERCOVER was the proper follow up to EMOTIONAL RESCUE and found the band being inventive, creative and willing to do some new things with results that vary, to me anyway, from good to really cool, DIRTY WORK is the sound of an old band attempting to fit in with what was current - which a lot of older artists did with similar results - and failing brilliantly.

Why is it that the younger artists from that time don't sound as bad as the Stones do on DIRTY WORK, regardless of the songs? Maybe they didn't over do it or they totally over did it and made it work?

??? That's why they chose Harlem Shuffle/Had It With You as the single. One Hit/Fight for the next one?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-17 12:40 by DandelionPowderman.

Since 1990s, i agree that R&R is a sauce of monotonous distortioned guitars and sad singers who seem to tired too sing.

So, which new tendencies might inspire to anyone??
There are some good efforts like Rain Fall Down and LIND, but curiously people do not appreciatte it.............
If they sound classic...bad, try new things..................if they try new things............bad, "MT years nostalgia syndrome"

The problem is that, since 2005 we have no new music from the Rolling Stones, nor bad nor good, nor classic rock, nor new tendencies. The only thing we had was a single with a Jagger's A side and a Richard's B side. An we want more Rolling Stones music, it always will be wellcome to me, but pleas, avoid too much tendencies like "a sauce of monotonous distortioned guitars and sad singers who seem to tired too sing".

Quote
GasLightStreet

Where as UNDERCOVER was the proper follow up to EMOTIONAL RESCUE and found the band being inventive, creative and willing to do some new things with results that vary, to me anyway, from good to really cool, DIRTY WORK is the sound of an old band attempting to fit in with what was current - which a lot of older artists did with similar results - and failing brilliantly.

That`s not true imo. As far as I remember when it was released at the time there was epecially one thing that was mentioned in the press worldwide: here is a band recording "live" in the studio. Less electronics, no computers , no programming, no drum machines (well no or less if you see the whole production). All that was common and modern at the time. Even if DW is not the best one in the Stones catalogue it stands for a different way of recording in the studio in the mid 80`s. Together with a Joe Jackson LP released the same time.

And btw DW didn`t get a bad press when it was released. And the single HS was played regulary in the radio. But DW didn`t stand the test of time. Like SW..

Tom



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-17 18:00 by electricmud.

This would be a great Tom Petty song which is why it would still suck.

Quote
Witness

As one who happens to like very much some of the, originally, indie music from the '80s and early '90s, for instance the Pixies, what I have heard from Sonic Youth, or music from bands of the shoegazer scene, the point is not so good to me. (From reasons outside music, I completely stopped following that or other scene after the early '90s).


[....]

For who else is Frank Black, even if I did not follow up his career later on, than the Pixies' Black Francis!!! However, I am ready now to do that. I saw the Pixies when DOOLITTLE was new, but had later on for some period somewhat lesser possibility to use money and missed the opportunity to buy TROMPE LE MONDE, which I bought some months ago. Once again, that album was meant by me to be listened to this evening before I read this. (But thank you, matxil, for the reference to and recommendation of Black Frank's other releases.)

Well, there is some "shoegazer/post-punk" music I actually do like, for instance Joy Division, Virgin Prunes (not sure whether that is shoegazer or just weird), Wire, PIL, ...
But, I don't see how the Stones could ever get influenced by aforementioned bands, I mean, imagine Mick Jagger singing seriously, without any tongue in cheek, about "a crisis that he knew that would come, destroying the balance he kept"... But hey, it might have been interesting. PIL might be interesting for them too, what with all the dub influences in that. Then again, I think I read somewhere that Keith can't stand Johnny Rotten (although that never stopped Mick Jagger...)

I thought Pixies were fun but I like Frank Black better. And I guess Frank Black, even though he has modern post-punk influences, clearly also has more American "roots music" influences, at least in those albums that I mentioned. So it might be easier for the Stones to relate to it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-17 19:52 by matxil.

Quote
Doxa

But had the Stones chance at all in the 80's? That is, whatever they had done, wouldn't have make it? I don't know. I tend to think that the tricks of the day started to be so far from their own roots in blues that it was impossible for these old dogs to learn them (Keith seemingly was more aware of that, Mick not so much). Perhaps that was a good thing.

- Doxa

I fully agree.

Maybe if they really wouldn't haven given a **** about their audience, and gone really experimental (i.e. get influenced by PIL for instance) something interesting might have come up. On the other hand, the last time they did that, they came out with Her Satanic Majesties... I don't know what's worse actually, a joke like Her Satanic or a bore like Voodoo Lounge.

A good song, maybe my favourite of the "Four Licks". They should indeed have recorded an album's worth of song there and then, even though they had no immediate use for them at the time. They sound pretty inspired. Not doing that was a huge missed opportunity.

So we must be happy with what we got. "Stealing My Heart" really should have been the 2nd single from "40 Licks". But as it wasn't, it's unlikely they'll ever try it out in concert.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness
.

I agree and disagree. ..................


Actually I don't even try to name the guilty ones here. My take simply is that the Stones lost the muse during the 80's - the one that had forced them to reinvent their sound, and create exciting music, through the 60's and the 70's. If they simply have done better music, everything might have been different. But they simply couldn't do that any longer, no matter how much they tried. And soon they even stopped trying. Thankfully for them, by the end of the 80's and in early 80's, the whole rock scene made a kind of 'nostalgic turn', and for the Stones - the "real thing", the biggest representative of the classic rock days - was enough just to be the classical sounding Stones. There was no any reason to 'reinvention'; the less of that, the better. There was a huge demand for them (to anything they represented from the legendary 60's and 70's). Especially VOODOO LOUNGE was a perfect album for to please that demand. And it sold more than any album since TATTOO YOU. That their potential audience was not so young any longer, that is, was rather wealthy by then, didn't hurt either. The big money was there, in touring, and pleasing those expectations, took the 'forced' conservatism into a new level altogether. Soon releasing any music, not even 'Stones-by-numbers' ones, was not such a big deal at all.

But had the Stones chance at all in the 80's? That is, whatever they had done, wouldn't have make it? I don't know. I tend to think that the tricks of the day started to be so far from their own roots in blues that it was impossible for these old dogs to learn them (Keith seemingly was more aware of that, Mick not so much). Perhaps that was a good thing.

- Doxa

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
Witness
Now limited by solely having a mobile to write on, only this: I wonder if there might be some further kinds of "folk music" genres, broadly speaking, which they have not entered or not entered so much, that they might utilize. That is their expertise, and there might in case lie their possibility. To base some type of rock music on such genres as well as themselves make some songs within those genres. If so, they might be creative. With that as a core for an album and inspired by such, they might even add some songs from genres that they have used before, and the different context might make those songs emerge fresh, too.

Witness, I like your idea, but the problem (as I see it) is that the Glimmer Twins are no longer intersted in creating interesting, vital new music. Each of them has other interests that they find far more gratifying (spending time with children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, producing films, performing their songs in concert, counting their money, reading history books, growing lemon trees, etc etc). And this is compounded by the fact that their creative partnership -- and with it the remarkable creative muse that generated so much wonderful music -- long ago dissolved (in all but name). And to top it off, Mick and Keith know that they can get away with crap like Stealing My Heart because no one really cares anymore except us die-hard fans.

Drew

Under the strain of a less and less interested fanbase, confronted with newer Stones ideas, displayed in the reception to UNDERCOVER, the partnership between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards also in the same process became more severely exposed. The inclinations of the two - Mick more towards continued innovation, Keith increasingly rather towards further development of the core of music ideas, that had evolved between them - that contrasting attitude, one might assume, changed into a more extreme mutual relationship. That means it was no dissolvement, but a difficult stretch in their partnership. First, towards something approaching a split during DIRTY WORK, then, later, involved in a sought (probably also, difficult) compromise in this issue after the band's virtual reunion. However, all the time with an immanent split in their attitudes making for less ability to work as a creative band in the studio like in their past.

Then what is at work, is the combined effect of two or three (or even four) factors behind what in a too simplified point of view may appear as a, claimed, more or less unprovoked loss of their muse. a) The growing conservatism of the aging fanbase (and its musical generations), b) the increasing difficulty of an elder rock band to attract new generations in order to renew their fanbase, when the band was a stadium venues concert band, and c) the contrasting attitudes between Mick and Keith towards musical innovation vs remaining within their created musical universe.

And when I say that is a too simplified point of view, against which I argue, it is also because the last two albums made with eyes fixed forward, not backward (TATTOO YOU), before this alleged loss of muse, were enterprising albums in my perspective (EMOTIONAL RESCUE and, especially(?) UNDERCOVER).

Add to the mentionned combined effects, d) the difficult situation of the band exposed not to one surrounding scene, but to the split simultaneous presence of a musical "overground" and an underground, the latter consisting of various and different scenes of independent labels and venues for a longer period. Neither of them, that positively oriented towards an older major band's attempts to renew itself, but with a view preferably to make new idols or, alternatively, radical new musical expressions. At best, willing to show the old Stones as the old Stones.

Then it is not simply creative stagnation expressing itself either, when the band later on takes the opportunity to communicate by their recreation of older ideas, which they themselves out of their own accord at that time needed to play out towards their public with the release of VOODOO LOUNGE, to find their own feet again. It may also be an effort to come of out of an isolation that, relatively speaking, had been their situation during parts of the 80s. Besides, the band in addition needed to renew the contract with their customers and audiences, after having lost and having to replace one of their original members (Bill Wyman). In passing,besides, I find the evaluation of VOODOO LOUNGE as recreation of old ideas only, as somewhat exaggerated. Apart from that, what seems most backwards looking, possibly, "You Got Me Rocking" and "I Go Wild", those songs are rather formulaic oriented as such, then needed by the band in their refinding moment, than socalled "Stones-by-numbers". In fact, Stones-by-numbers, although rather successful and catchy, I rather find covering as a characteristic for "Start Me Up".

Then it is remarkable that after having delivered VOODOO LOUNGE, that their next album, although characterized by the personal strained relation Jagger- Richards, was more of a creative ambition again.

So, no, I disagree that their muse was lost, even if was weakened. However, it might have been gradually regained in part,if the band's efforts to do so had been rewarded.

Last edit: Correction of a misprint.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-17 21:25 by Witness.

Quote
billwebster
A good song, maybe my favourite of the "Four Licks". They should indeed have recorded an album's worth of song there and then, even though they had no immediate use for them at the time. They sound pretty inspired. Not doing that was a huge missed opportunity.

So we must be happy with what we got. "Stealing My Heart" really should have been the 2nd single from "40 Licks". But as it wasn't, it's unlikely they'll ever try it out in concert.

They did.

I enter another post here, where I earlier mistakenly made a new post, instead of correcting an old one:

Quote
matxil

Quote
Witness

Well, there is some "shoegazer/post-punk" music I actually do like, for instance Joy Division, Virgin Prunes (not sure whether that is shoegazer or just weird), Wire, PIL, ...
But, I don't see how the Stones could ever get influenced by aforementioned bands, I mean, imagine Mick Jagger singing seriously, without any tongue in cheek, about "a crisis that he knew that would come, destroying the balance he kept"... But hey, it might have been interesting. PIL might be interesting for them too, what with all the dub influences in that. Then again, I think I read somewhere that Keith can't stand Johnny Rotten (although that never stopped Mick Jagger...)

I thought Pixies were fun but I like Frank Black better. And I guess Frank Black, even though he has modern post-punk influences, clearly also has more American "roots music" influences, at least in those albums that I mentioned. So it might be easier for the Stones to relate to it.

Actually, on a vinyl boot that I have got from, I think it is, Munich 1973 , after the Stones had performed "You Can't Always Get What You want", Mick introduces "Angie" by saying something to the effect that, " We gonna play another sad song for you". And the version of those two songs are even more emotionally satisfying than the versions on the Brussels double vinyl boot NASTY SONGS.

But, yes, I agree that Joy Divison as band of depressive rock could not have been model for a Stones album. Even New Order could not remain within that horizon and went into another direction, at first as a post-depressive rock band. By the way, for a rather long period the band continuation Joy Divison/ New Order was my second favourite band. They still rank high with me.
- I won't exclude, though, even if it did not happen, that Joy Division in a more indirect manner in an interesting way in its time could have been drawn on as an inspiration for a Stones album.

The shoegazer bands comprise a more narrow part of the scene. I can't pretend to know more than a Wikipedia link that I consulted. I was very much into Slowdive especially. Often mentionned, if they are to be included, My Bloody Valentine, is in case a major band there, especially with their album LOVELESS and a couple of EPs. Sometimes listed Ride I liked to some degree, but not quite as much, even if I listened to them and was to one concert. I am not able to draw a sharp dividing line with those bands and other bands on the Creation label, which also interested me. Often after I had seen clips on the MTV programme 120 Minutes, which also introduced me to many other bands that I took a delight in or liked, among them the Pixies represented by the song Caribou.

Quote
matxil

Quote
Doxa

But had the Stones chance at all in the 80's? That is, whatever they had done, wouldn't have make it? I don't know. I tend to think that the tricks of the day started to be so far from their own roots in blues that it was impossible for these old dogs to learn them (Keith seemingly was more aware of that, Mick not so much). Perhaps that was a good thing.

- Doxa

I fully agree.

Maybe if they really wouldn't haven given a **** about their audience, and gone really experimental (i.e. get influenced by PIL for instance) something interesting might have come up. On the other hand, the last time they did that, they came out with Her Satanic Majesties... I don't know what's worse actually, a joke like Her Satanic or a bore like Voodoo Lounge.

Oh, dear, I can't abstain: THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST to me is no joke, but one of the great Stones albums and, besides, to a larger extent than any other Stones album, one of its kind.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-17 22:20 by Witness.

This tune doesn't cut it for me, like DandelionPowderman pointed out, it's too pop to be grunge and too grunge to be pop. The chords are garage band-esque, then Mick starts singing with that strange inflection which is more irritating than most of his other "voices". It's like he's trying too hard or something. It's like he forgot how to sing during this period.

The chorus is cliche and lame and the tune just doesn't go anywhere.

The only positive thing I can say about it is the mixing and production are good. I can hear all the instruments, including the acoustic guitar. With a better song the production techniques could have produced a real winner.

This is definately the era where the Stones were beginning to forget what good rock and roll was all about. peace

The tune it self isn't that bad ..........the only problem is that Mick is trying to be Mick.............

Well said my friend Naturalist..........

then Mick starts singing with that strange inflection which is more irritating than most of his other "voices". It's like he's trying too hard or something.

__________________________