For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
James Kirk
For the record when I started this thread my intention wasn't to discuss the success of Paul McCartney. My intention was simply to contrast McCartney's continuing creativity to the Stones total lack of output + continued repeating off themselves on the road doing nearly the same exact show year after year. You could substitute Bruce Springsteen or any number of other artists and the argument would still be valid.
The Stones are in a unique position to at least attempt to grow this music up with mature rock/blues records, but unlike McCartney they simply don't try. They just use their iconic brand to sell wildly expensive concert tickets to line their pockets...They are taking the easy way out.
They still have enough credibility to make albums that matter (like Bob Dylan for example) but they prefer to charge fans $500 to hear them sing "It's Only Rock + Roll" AGAIN and not even try to be creative.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
James Kirk
For the record when I started this thread my intention wasn't to discuss the success of Paul McCartney. My intention was simply to contrast McCartney's continuing creativity to the Stones total lack of output + continued repeating off themselves on the road doing nearly the same exact show year after year. You could substitute Bruce Springsteen or any number of other artists and the argument would still be valid.
The Stones are in a unique position to at least attempt to grow this music up with mature rock/blues records, but unlike McCartney they simply don't try. They just use their iconic brand to sell wildly expensive concert tickets to line their pockets...They are taking the easy way out.
They still have enough credibility to make albums that matter (like Bob Dylan for example) but they prefer to charge fans $500 to hear them sing "It's Only Rock + Roll" AGAIN and not even try to be creative.
You could look at it from a completely different perspective as well, which is to say that 50+ years on, and even with some diminished capacity, they are the biggest and best live act around, maybe ever.
We can quibble about whether they delve deep enough into their catalogue or not, that's fine, but they have one of the finest if not the finest catalogue of music of which to draw from and are able to perform at a high level well into their 70s.`
As far as creativity and 'new music' is concerned, as has been observed they are still individually creative, but perhaps collectively that muse has passed a long time ago for various reasons.
It's not as though McCartney, or any other legendary performer is out there playing 50% new material in their set list, so what is the big deal?
Why continue to lament about things that are not remotely within your control?
Quote
alhavu1
Correct. a legacy of boring, safe pop elevator muzak
Quote
dcbaQuote
alhavu1
Correct. a legacy of boring, safe pop elevator muzak
I wouldn't go that far but just compare PIBlack to "Blackbird" and you'll see where the grandness lies.
Macca is an honest craftsman of harmless silly/funny campfire songs. The Stones created songs that make an impression on you (PIB SFTD MR GS).
Hadn't the Stones been around, most people and critics would today consider "Helter Skelter" as the scariest rock song of the 60's.
Do you even know what Blackbird is about?Quote
dcba
compare PIBlack to "Blackbird" and you'll see where the grandness lies.
Macca is an honest craftsman of harmless silly/funny campfire songs.
While most people believe that Charles Manson was influenced by Blackbird and Helter Skelter, his true rage and philosophical theories are based on the Rolling Stones' jingle for Rice Crispies.Quote
MrThompsonWooft
Are you really saying that McCartneys songs have not made an impression?
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
BowieStone
Why is it always Jaggers fault? If the stones was the only thing he did, the stones would be more than a nostalgia band. But the man has a lot of interests.
I think Keith is the most happy. He hasn't written a complete song in, what, 20 years?
He has just completed an album with new songs + he wrote OMS in 2012.
Quote
dcbaQuote
alhavu1
Correct. a legacy of boring, safe pop elevator muzak
I wouldn't go that far but just compare PIBlack to "Blackbird" and you'll see where the grandness lies.
Macca is an honest craftsman of harmless silly/funny campfire songs. The Stones created songs that make an impression on you (PIB SFTD MR GS).
Hadn't the Stones been around, most people and critics would today consider "Helter Skelter" as the scariest rock song of the 60's.
Quote
latebloomerQuote
James Kirk
For the record when I started this thread my intention wasn't to discuss the success of Paul McCartney. My intention was simply to contrast McCartney's continuing creativity to the Stones total lack of output + continued repeating off themselves on the road doing nearly the same exact show year after year. You could substitute Bruce Springsteen or any number of other artists and the argument would still be valid.
The Stones are in a unique position to at least attempt to grow this music up with mature rock/blues records, but unlike McCartney they simply don't try. They just use their iconic brand to sell wildly expensive concert tickets to line their pockets...They are taking the easy way out.
They still have enough credibility to make albums that matter (like Bob Dylan for example) but they prefer to charge fans $500 to hear them sing "It's Only Rock + Roll" AGAIN and not even try to be creative.
No one is forced to buy the tickets or to even listen to their music. They do
what they do for their own reasons, and so do we all. It seems to me to be pointless to compare the Stones to individual artists. It's not at all the same.
Quote
latebloomerQuote
James Kirk
For the record when I started this thread my intention wasn't to discuss the success of Paul McCartney. My intention was simply to contrast McCartney's continuing creativity to the Stones total lack of output + continued repeating
off themselves on the road doing nearly the same exact show year after year. You could substitute Bruce Springsteen or any number of other artists and the argument would still be valid.
The Stones are in a unique position to at least attempt to grow this music up with mature rock/blues records, but unlike McCartney they simply don't try. They just use their iconic brand to sell wildly expensive concert tickets to line their pockets...They are taking the easy way out.
They still have enough credibility to make albums that matter (like Bob Dylan for example) but they prefer to charge fans $500 to hear them sing "It's Only Rock + Roll" AGAIN and not even try to be creative.
No one is forced to buy the tickets or to even listen to their music. They do what they do for their own reasons, and so do we all. It seems to me to be pointless to compare the Stones to individual artists. It's not at all the same.
Quote
keefriff99Quote
caschimann
"Peace everybody - peace - cool it - everybody - stop pushing each other - cool it, everybody, pleeaaase!"
Altamount Speedway, December 1969.
IF THOSE CATS DON'T STOP IT, MAN...
So why didn't they follow up on that contemporary sound? Where's a new album to show us that they still got it and they still have something relevant to say? Where's their contribution to today's musical landscape? It's nowhere and it's been nowhere for a long time. In other words, they're an oldies act. The truth hurts. I love The Stones and I would love for them to prove us all wrong by being artists (isn't that what they are? were?) and making new and interesting art for us to enjoy. If not then that's fine, I'll enjoy hearing the same ol' song and dance in concert with a little sadness that their creative juices are gone.Quote
billwebster
The Rolling Stones were not an "oldies act" when they released their most recent single, "Doom And Gloom". That one sounded very contemporary. Enough said.
Quote
Boognish
edit: obviously you don't if you think it's a "silly/funny campfire song".
Quote
dcbaQuote
Boognish
edit: obviously you don't if you think it's a "silly/funny campfire song".
I do know what it means and that's precisely what I hate about the Beatles : using double-entendres to deal with hot topics and at the same time not wanting to face the enemy.
When Jagger refers to Angela Davis' imprisonement he sings "Free the sweet black slave" (and during the Seattle'72 late gig he added "Who got free today? Angela Davis got free today").
Macca would have written "Last night I dreamt the black dove from Alabama was flying freely in the sky". Not the same impact. When you deal with political topics you need to hit the object of your attack hard.
Dylan proved this with "Hattie Carroll" in 1964. Jagger learnt the lesson. Macca was a coward.
McCartney wrote his message in a subtle way. Nothing wrong with that. It's art. Sometimes less is more. And in terms of impact, if one was to compare how many times Blackbird was performed at civil rights events or used in documentaries about civil rights vs. how many times Sweet Black Angel was performed/used, I'd put my money on the former.Quote
dcbaQuote
Boognish
edit: obviously you don't if you think it's a "silly/funny campfire song".
I do know what it means and that's precisely what I hate about the Beatles : using double-entendres to deal with hot topics and at the same time not wanting to face the enemy.
When Jagger refers to Angela Davis' imprisonement he sings "Free the sweet black slave" (and during the Seattle'72 late gig he added "Who got free today? Angela Davis got free today").
Macca would have written "Last night I dreamt the black dove from Alabama was flying freely in the sky". Not the same impact. When you deal with political topics you need to hit the object of your attack hard.
Dylan proved this with "Hattie Carroll" in 1964. Jagger learnt the lesson. Macca was a coward.
Quote
dcbaQuote
Boognish
edit: obviously you don't if you think it's a "silly/funny campfire song".
When you deal with political topics you need to hit the object of your attack hard
Quote
dmay
Re the Dead Kennedys Nazi Punks: Not to knock anyone's taste - we all have our likes and dislikes - but it's still amazing to me how some bands try to pass off sh*t for shock or some kind of artistic statement and people fall for it.
Quote
drbryantQuote
stanloveQuote
KeithNacho
Yes, i am upset and Rolling Stones do not move me too much these last years. I did't attend any show of these last tours.
I need some fresh music and some improvement on the guitar section. They should work on a new album and tour playing some new songs.
The Stones are not able to make good music anymore. They have tried. They are my favorite band ever by far but I can't figure them out. They have played basically the same concert now for quarter of a century and now plan on doing it some more.
I can't believe that any of them want to keep doing this, it got boring decades ago. I can't believe that Mick and Keith would rather just do the same thi9ng over and over again before doing something new on their own.
It's interesting that some fans think the Stones are boring - you wonder if they've actually seen the group. I go to dozens of concerts every year by all kinds of acts. But, I look at this clip of the Stones at their most recent show in Auckland - with the epic Mick Taylor solo, and Jagger on the mini-stage, as sheets of rain fall - and "boring" is the last thing that comes to mind. In fact, I can't think of anyone that is anywhere near this good. I took this video, by the way, and as great as it is, it doesn't capture how amazing it was to see it live.
Quote
dmay
From treaclefingers re my comment on the Dead Kennedys - "Don`t you remember your Dad telling you that when you were listening to Brown Sugar?"
Actually, what dad said, much earlier, was, while watching the Ed SUllivan show here in the U-S-of-A back in the day, one time when the Stones came on: "Look at them. Just look at them. They're disgusting. Why don't you like those nice looking boys, those Beatles." My fate was sealed. A Stones fan forever.
Dad later said, when I played Dylan's "Bringing It All Back Home" album, the album that hooked me on Dylan because of the beauty of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue", foremost among the songs, along with "She Belongs To Me", "Love Minus Zero", and the still relevant "It's Alright Ma", dad's comment on hearing Dylan's voice was, "He sounds like a chicken with its head cut off". You go figure what that line means. Oddly enough, when as a sullen teen I chafed at doing chores around the house or paying attention to the parents, me dad would sing out to me re my chafing, "I ain't gonna work on daddy's farm no more", making up his own version of Dylan's song. So, apparently, the old fluck had paid attention to Bob.