Quote
nightskyman
The Stones will always be relevant, they've proven it with their current tour. Question is how much longer can they go on.

Spot on, I mean, they have 3 ALBUMS RIGHT NOW among the best sellers in the U.S, not even Taylor Swift is charting more albums (only 2) and we're talking about a 53+ years old band!

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
what's ironic about that is that the stones made a name for themselves and became who they were by questioning *everything* done by those who came before, and mostly doing the opposite. they played guitars because it was outrageous. ditto drugs, androgyny, bohemian lifestyle, becoming musicians etc. the imitators often don't get it: a mick jagger and keith richards born today would *not* be doing all of those things, they would be doing something new and outrageous.

Hmm, in some ways they were originators and innovators, but mostly they were walking in the footsteps of giants too. The rockers of the 50's and the black American artists, the rich aristocratic youth of the 60's set the stage for them. They spent a fair amount of time emulating their heros too. In terms of guitars, drug use, bohemian lifestyle I could probably state where they took their lead from in every case.

I'd have to think a bit harder to come up with what the Stones were actually true innovators of, possibly combining rock, folk and blues is one. I think the lifestyle stuff was so influential on culture mostly because the music was so good and they were so well marketed to the masses. Those amazing pictures and stories from Nellcote sure helped alot.

you're missing the element of race. yes, they copied. but they copied the black musicians and brought it to europe and white america, which had never seen anything like it before.
copying the stones in europe and white america, on the other hand, isn't quite a rebellious or shocking.

Not exactly. Elvis Presley and others had already brought black music to a white American audience. Yes the Stones picked up on more of the blues element, made it their own and with lots of help, packaged marketed it successfully to us Americans, but the form was already there really, just not as readily available for public consumption, imo. I doubt any of the Stones were great marketers is my point and my parents had black blues and jazz artists in their collections.

Here is the great Billy Payne taking about the footsteps of giants, even mentions the Stones in there:

[www.youtube.com]

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
what's ironic about that is that the stones made a name for themselves and became who they were by questioning *everything* done by those who came before, and mostly doing the opposite. they played guitars because it was outrageous. ditto drugs, androgyny, bohemian lifestyle, becoming musicians etc. the imitators often don't get it: a mick jagger and keith richards born today would *not* be doing all of those things, they would be doing something new and outrageous.

Hmm, in some ways they were originators and innovators, but mostly they were walking in the footsteps of giants too. The rockers of the 50's and the black American artists, the rich aristocratic youth of the 60's set the stage for them. They spent a fair amount of time emulating their heros too. In terms of guitars, drug use, bohemian lifestyle I could probably state where they took their lead from in every case.

I'd have to think a bit harder to come up with what the Stones were actually true innovators of, possibly combining rock, folk and blues is one. I think the lifestyle stuff was so influential on culture mostly because the music was so good and they were so well marketed to the masses. Those amazing pictures and stories from Nellcote sure helped alot.

you're missing the element of race. yes, they copied. but they copied the black musicians and brought it to europe and white america, which had never seen anything like it before.
copying the stones in europe and white america, on the other hand, isn't quite a rebellious or shocking.

Not exactly. Elvis Presley and others had already brought black music to a white American audience. Yes the Stones picked up on more of the blues element, made it their own and with lots of help, packaged marketed it successfully to us Americans, but the form was already there really, just not as readily available for public consumption, imo. I doubt any of the Stones were great marketers is my point and my parents had black blues and jazz artists in their collections.

Here is the great Billy Payne taking about the footsteps of giants, even mentions the Stones in there:

[www.youtube.com]

lol, ok if you want to argue that the stones didn't rebel and didn't bring traditionally black music to new audiences, go ahead... i won't stop you...

Quote
Naturalust
With all the posts here about the Stones losing relevance some 35-40 years ago (mine included) I guess we're all just a bunch of nostalgic fools to still be such big fans. I'm gonna go cry in my Corn Flakes now.

Thankfully great music is lasting, timeless and if it still makes you feel good, relevance becomes somewhat meaningless. Relevant to the times, to social values and such is seemingly less important that some would believe. I'm sure a lot of us developed our attitudes about social values and such long ago and they probably haven't changed much.

I don't even know what relevant Stones music would look or sound like in modern times...Sweet Neo Con? Google Shelter? There is obviously a relevance in the nostalgia of those powerful times of the 60's and 70's, a relevance in making sure we don't forget what made us who we are....the children of Rock and Roll.

I think there may be a different way of looking at this question of nostagia/relevance. For instance, if you take as fact that The Stones "best" music was produced nearly 50 years ago and that "most" of what they have produced since then will not stand the test of time, then it's possible to view the band in history, rather than as a current entity. We don't see The Beatles in this way; they are consigned to the dustbin or the exalted altar (depending on your perspective) of history. The Stones can really be seen in the same way, even though they are still active performers.

Imagine you are living in Germany in 1645. It might be possible to view J.S. Bach's best works as all at least 20 years old. You might bemoan Bach's most recent output, but would that make it impossible for you to still love the stuff he composed in the 1620's? Could you be a fan of Bach's music (from a historical perspective) but really not be very interested in what Bach was doing currently? Of course you could.

(BTW, two caveats: 1) I am not attempting a comparison between Bach and Jagger/Richards; humanity will still be tapping its toes to the 1st mvmnt of the 5th Brandenburg Cto long after Jumpin Jack Flash has been forgotten, and 2) Bach wrote great music in his later years; it's just that most of his "hits" were written decades earlier. In this sense, perhaps Bach was a bit more like Dylan.)

One of the things this board has helped me realize is that I do not like the current band but that I like the band I first fell in love with just as much as I ever did. I've learned to stay off the "live updates" pages from that night's current concert because a) I refuse to read about another person who cannot use Periscope, and b) I don't want to be a "whiner" and hang around carping about what the band used to be to a bunch of people trying to have a good time at the "best concert ever." Threads like this one have become one of the few areas I feel comfortable in and that I check regularly because I find interesting the level of critical discussion about an important band.

Regarding the question of what "relevant" Stones music might sound like in 2015: I'm not sure "relevant" is the best term here. It would be impossible for the band to be relevant today the way they were in 1969. (You could even argue it's impossible for ANY musician today to be as vital a component of society and pop culture today as musicians were in the 60's and 70's.) I would phrase it more like: what would good honest new Stones music sound like in 2015? What if they had kept on crawling up the rotting arsehole of Americana in EXILE and just never stopped? Gone on past the swamplands and voodoo marshes to a place that would make Nick Cave's Grinderman records sound like The Carpenters?

We could've been smokin dope with Dylan in 1965 during the Highway 61 sessions and with Mick and Keith between takes of "Satisfaction." We could've wondered what each might sound like in 50 years. With Dylan we have the answer: "Pay in Blood," "Early Roman Kings," "Roll On John," electric blues filtered through a 70-year-old poet's eyes. With The Stones, we will never know. Because they stopped. They're part of history now.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
what's ironic about that is that the stones made a name for themselves and became who they were by questioning *everything* done by those who came before, and mostly doing the opposite. they played guitars because it was outrageous. ditto drugs, androgyny, bohemian lifestyle, becoming musicians etc. the imitators often don't get it: a mick jagger and keith richards born today would *not* be doing all of those things, they would be doing something new and outrageous.

Hmm, in some ways they were originators and innovators, but mostly they were walking in the footsteps of giants too. The rockers of the 50's and the black American artists, the rich aristocratic youth of the 60's set the stage for them. They spent a fair amount of time emulating their heros too. In terms of guitars, drug use, bohemian lifestyle I could probably state where they took their lead from in every case.

I'd have to think a bit harder to come up with what the Stones were actually true innovators of, possibly combining rock, folk and blues is one. I think the lifestyle stuff was so influential on culture mostly because the music was so good and they were so well marketed to the masses. Those amazing pictures and stories from Nellcote sure helped alot.

Indeed.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."



I'm sure it will have been discussed in various threads ad infinitum, but is there a thread dedicated to the marketing of the band; 'Stones myths vs. reality' for instance?

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
what's ironic about that is that the stones made a name for themselves and became who they were by questioning *everything* done by those who came before, and mostly doing the opposite. they played guitars because it was outrageous. ditto drugs, androgyny, bohemian lifestyle, becoming musicians etc. the imitators often don't get it: a mick jagger and keith richards born today would *not* be doing all of those things, they would be doing something new and outrageous.

Hmm, in some ways they were originators and innovators, but mostly they were walking in the footsteps of giants too. The rockers of the 50's and the black American artists, the rich aristocratic youth of the 60's set the stage for them. They spent a fair amount of time emulating their heros too. In terms of guitars, drug use, bohemian lifestyle I could probably state where they took their lead from in every case.

I'd have to think a bit harder to come up with what the Stones were actually true innovators of, possibly combining rock, folk and blues is one. I think the lifestyle stuff was so influential on culture mostly because the music was so good and they were so well marketed to the masses. Those amazing pictures and stories from Nellcote sure helped alot.

Indeed.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."



I'm sure it will have been discussed in various threads ad infinitum, but is there a thread dedicated to the marketing of the band; 'Stones myths vs. reality' for instance?

the photos and stories from nellcote helped make them big? they were huge in 1964 and 1965, 7 years before nellcote, for their impact on not just music but lifestyle, fashion, etc....

Quote
Turner68
lol, ok if you want to argue that the stones didn't rebel and didn't bring traditionally black music to new audiences, go ahead... i won't stop you...

Obviously those aren't the points I'm arguing, just that they weren't the first to do so.

Whew, potent post there LongBeachArena72..right on.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
lol, ok if you want to argue that the stones didn't rebel and didn't bring traditionally black music to new audiences, go ahead... i won't stop you...

Obviously those aren't the points I'm arguing, just that they weren't the first to do so.

Whew, potent post there LongBeachArena72..right on.

ah ok, well no one was saying that they were the first, so ... shrug?

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
lol, ok if you want to argue that the stones didn't rebel and didn't bring traditionally black music to new audiences, go ahead... i won't stop you...

Obviously those aren't the points I'm arguing, just that they weren't the first to do so.

Whew, potent post there LongBeachArena72..right on.

ah ok, well no one was saying that they were the first, so ... shrug?

Don't want to get too deep here Turner because I understand what you are saying, I was just responding to your initial posts where you insinuated the Stones weren't imitating anyone (ie: first) and that Americans had never seen anything like white people playing black music. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying too. peace, my friend.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Naturalust
With all the posts here about the Stones losing relevance some 35-40 years ago (mine included) I guess we're all just a bunch of nostalgic fools to still be such big fans. I'm gonna go cry in my Corn Flakes now.

Thankfully great music is lasting, timeless and if it still makes you feel good, relevance becomes somewhat meaningless. Relevant to the times, to social values and such is seemingly less important that some would believe. I'm sure a lot of us developed our attitudes about social values and such long ago and they probably haven't changed much.

I don't even know what relevant Stones music would look or sound like in modern times...Sweet Neo Con? Google Shelter? There is obviously a relevance in the nostalgia of those powerful times of the 60's and 70's, a relevance in making sure we don't forget what made us who we are....the children of Rock and Roll.

I think there may be a different way of looking at this question of nostagia/relevance. For instance, if you take as fact that The Stones "best" music was produced nearly 50 years ago and that "most" of what they have produced since then will not stand the test of time, then it's possible to view the band in history, rather than as a current entity. We don't see The Beatles in this way; they are consigned to the dustbin or the exalted altar (depending on your perspective) of history. The Stones can really be seen in the same way, even though they are still active performers.

Imagine you are living in Germany in 1645. It might be possible to view J.S. Bach's best works as all at least 20 years old. You might bemoan Bach's most recent output, but would that make it impossible for you to still love the stuff he composed in the 1620's? Could you be a fan of Bach's music (from a historical perspective) but really not be very interested in what Bach was doing currently? Of course you could.

(BTW, two caveats: 1) I am not attempting a comparison between Bach and Jagger/Richards; humanity will still be tapping its toes to the 1st mvmnt of the 5th Brandenburg Cto long after Jumpin Jack Flash has been forgotten, and 2) Bach wrote great music in his later years; it's just that most of his "hits" were written decades earlier. In this sense, perhaps Bach was a bit more like Dylan.)

One of the things this board has helped me realize is that I do not like the current band but that I like the band I first fell in love with just as much as I ever did. I've learned to stay off the "live updates" pages from that night's current concert because a) I refuse to read about another person who cannot use Periscope, and b) I don't want to be a "whiner" and hang around carping about what the band used to be to a bunch of people trying to have a good time at the "best concert ever." Threads like this one have become one of the few areas I feel comfortable in and that I check regularly because I find interesting the level of critical discussion about an important band.

Regarding the question of what "relevant" Stones music might sound like in 2015: I'm not sure "relevant" is the best term here. It would be impossible for the band to be relevant today the way they were in 1969. (You could even argue it's impossible for ANY musician today to be as vital a component of society and pop culture today as musicians were in the 60's and 70's.) I would phrase it more like: what would good honest new Stones music sound like in 2015? What if they had kept on crawling up the rotting arsehole of Americana in EXILE and just never stopped? Gone on past the swamplands and voodoo marshes to a place that would make Nick Cave's Grinderman records sound like The Carpenters?

We could've been smokin dope with Dylan in 1965 during the Highway 61 sessions and with Mick and Keith between takes of "Satisfaction." We could've wondered what each might sound like in 50 years. With Dylan we have the answer: "Pay in Blood," "Early Roman Kings," "Roll On John," electric blues filtered through a 70-year-old poet's eyes. With The Stones, we will never know. Because they stopped. They're part of history now.

I think if you talked to Dylan (or read his autobiography which I'm sure you have and if not I highly recommend) you would get a sense that he was truly a guy who wanted to create new sounds, new ideas, new lyrics for capturing the world he saw around him. Like his namesake, Dylan Thomas, he sought to forge something new in the world in his art, and he does think of himself as an artist.

I think the Stones, on the other hand, view themselves more as a troupe of traveling musicians, on the road, bringing their music to new crowds, spreading a gospel that has been handed down for several generations now. i almost think back to Tudor england and ragged ruffians riding from town to town earning gold pieces for their songs. I don't think the Stones ever really considered themselves artists, although we do (and history will.) hence Mick's self-deprication and Keith's stories about being locked in the bathroom and snoring on the tape. (you'd never hear dylan talking like that.)

In other words, I think the Stones are more in the tradition of Muddy Waters and BB King, who did what they did - played music to crowds at an amazing level of performance and showmanship, until they passed (rest in peace) than they are, say, JS Bach or Bob Dylan (same caveats as you have above), where writing songs and creating art were explicitly on the agenda.

If you view the Stones through this lens, I think you can enjoy listening to them still, just as while I don't think BB King topped live at the Regal it was still amazing to see him play in "How Blue Can you Get" in the 1990s.

said more concisely, i think that the stones always underestimated themselves, and we always overestimated them, which ultimately has led to us hanging out on threads like this one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-11 03:04 by Turner68.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Turner68
lol, ok if you want to argue that the stones didn't rebel and didn't bring traditionally black music to new audiences, go ahead... i won't stop you...

Obviously those aren't the points I'm arguing, just that they weren't the first to do so.

Whew, potent post there LongBeachArena72..right on.

ah ok, well no one was saying that they were the first, so ... shrug?

Don't want to get too deep here Turner because I understand what you are saying, I was just responding to your initial posts where you insinuated the Stones weren't imitating anyone (ie: first) and that Americans had never seen anything like white people playing black music. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying too. peace, my friend.

i was saying they rebelled against the establishment, but then they became the establishment, and that those who copied their lifestyle were missing the point. the point was rebellion, not long hair and scruffy shirts.

Quote
Turner68

I think if you talked to Dylan (or read his autobiography which I'm sure you have and if not I highly recommend) you would get a sense that he was truly a guy who wanted to create new sounds, new ideas, new lyrics for capturing the world he saw around him. Like his namesake, Dylan Thomas, he sought to forge something new in the world in his art, and he does think of himself as an artist.

I think the Stones, on the other hand, view themselves more as a troupe of traveling musicians, on the road, bringing their music to new crowds, spreading a gospel that has been handed down for several generations now. i almost think back to Tudor england and ragged ruffians riding from town to town earning gold pieces for their songs. I don't think the Stones ever really considered themselves artists, although we do (and history will.) hence Mick's self-deprication and Keith's stories about being locked in the bathroom and snoring on the tape. (you'd never hear dylan talking like that.)

In other words, I think the Stones are more in the tradition of Muddy Waters and BB King, who did what they did - played music to crowds at an amazing level of performance and showmanship, until they passed (rest in peace) than they are, say, JS Bach or Bob Dylan (same caveats as you have above), where writing songs and creating art were explicitly on the agenda.

If you view the Stones through this lens, I think you can enjoy listening to them still, just as while I don't think BB King topped live at the Regal it was still amazing to see him play in "How Blue Can you Get" in the 1990s.

said more concisely, i think that the stones always underestimated themselves, and we always overestimated them, which ultimately has led to us hanging out on threads like this one.

Interesting post, particularly in relation to Jagger's 'self-deprication [sic].'


Gives me a couple of ideas for the setlist in Tudor times:


- 'Lady Jane Grey'

- 'Brand New Pumpkin Coach'

.....

Olly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-11 03:31 by Olly.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Naturalust
With all the posts here about the Stones losing relevance some 35-40 years ago (mine included) I guess we're all just a bunch of nostalgic fools to still be such big fans. I'm gonna go cry in my Corn Flakes now.

Thankfully great music is lasting, timeless and if it still makes you feel good, relevance becomes somewhat meaningless. Relevant to the times, to social values and such is seemingly less important that some would believe. I'm sure a lot of us developed our attitudes about social values and such long ago and they probably haven't changed much.

I don't even know what relevant Stones music would look or sound like in modern times...Sweet Neo Con? Google Shelter? There is obviously a relevance in the nostalgia of those powerful times of the 60's and 70's, a relevance in making sure we don't forget what made us who we are....the children of Rock and Roll.

I think there may be a different way of looking at this question of nostagia/relevance. For instance, if you take as fact that The Stones "best" music was produced nearly 50 years ago and that "most" of what they have produced since then will not stand the test of time, then it's possible to view the band in history, rather than as a current entity. We don't see The Beatles in this way; they are consigned to the dustbin or the exalted altar (depending on your perspective) of history. The Stones can really be seen in the same way, even though they are still active performers.

Imagine you are living in Germany in 1645. It might be possible to view J.S. Bach's best works as all at least 20 years old. You might bemoan Bach's most recent output, but would that make it impossible for you to still love the stuff he composed in the 1620's? Could you be a fan of Bach's music (from a historical perspective) but really not be very interested in what Bach was doing currently? Of course you could.

(BTW, two caveats: 1) I am not attempting a comparison between Bach and Jagger/Richards; humanity will still be tapping its toes to the 1st mvmnt of the 5th Brandenburg Cto long after Jumpin Jack Flash has been forgotten, and 2) Bach wrote great music in his later years; it's just that most of his "hits" were written decades earlier. In this sense, perhaps Bach was a bit more like Dylan.)

One of the things this board has helped me realize is that I do not like the current band but that I like the band I first fell in love with just as much as I ever did. I've learned to stay off the "live updates" pages from that night's current concert because a) I refuse to read about another person who cannot use Periscope, and b) I don't want to be a "whiner" and hang around carping about what the band used to be to a bunch of people trying to have a good time at the "best concert ever." Threads like this one have become one of the few areas I feel comfortable in and that I check regularly because I find interesting the level of critical discussion about an important band.

Regarding the question of what "relevant" Stones music might sound like in 2015: I'm not sure "relevant" is the best term here. It would be impossible for the band to be relevant today the way they were in 1969. (You could even argue it's impossible for ANY musician today to be as vital a component of society and pop culture today as musicians were in the 60's and 70's.) I would phrase it more like: what would good honest new Stones music sound like in 2015? What if they had kept on crawling up the rotting arsehole of Americana in EXILE and just never stopped? Gone on past the swamplands and voodoo marshes to a place that would make Nick Cave's Grinderman records sound like The Carpenters?

We could've been smokin dope with Dylan in 1965 during the Highway 61 sessions and with Mick and Keith between takes of "Satisfaction." We could've wondered what each might sound like in 50 years. With Dylan we have the answer: "Pay in Blood," "Early Roman Kings," "Roll On John," electric blues filtered through a 70-year-old poet's eyes. With The Stones, we will never know. Because they stopped. They're part of history now.

I think if you talked to Dylan (or read his autobiography which I'm sure you have and if not I highly recommend) you would get a sense that he was truly a guy who wanted to create new sounds, new ideas, new lyrics for capturing the world he saw around him. Like his namesake, Dylan Thomas, he sought to forge something new in the world in his art, and he does think of himself as an artist.

I think the Stones, on the other hand, view themselves more as a troupe of traveling musicians, on the road, bringing their music to new crowds, spreading a gospel that has been handed down for several generations now. i almost think back to Tudor england and ragged ruffians riding from town to town earning gold pieces for their songs. I don't think the Stones ever really considered themselves artists, although we do (and history will.) hence Mick's self-deprication and Keith's stories about being locked in the bathroom and snoring on the tape. (you'd never hear dylan talking like that.)

In other words, I think the Stones are more in the tradition of Muddy Waters and BB King, who did what they did - played music to crowds at an amazing level of performance and showmanship, until they passed (rest in peace) than they are, say, JS Bach or Bob Dylan (same caveats as you have above), where writing songs and creating art were explicitly on the agenda.

If you view the Stones through this lens, I think you can enjoy listening to them still, just as while I don't think BB King topped live at the Regal it was still amazing to see him play in "How Blue Can you Get" in the 1990s.

said more concisely, i think that the stones always underestimated themselves, and we always overestimated them, which ultimately has led to us hanging out on threads like this one.

I think you've put your finger on one aspect of The Stones creative personae, Turner. They've always been at odds with the idea of themselves as artists. On the one hand, they've wanted to be "cool," and dismissive of themselves (e.g. "oh yeah, what album was that on?"); at the risk of some dime-store psychology, this can sometimes be the sign of someone who wants to take the piss out of themselves before someone else does it for them. It's vulnerable work, putting yourself out there.

I think they've also never wanted to embrace their more intellectual side, or their roles as cultural lightning rods back in the day. I mean, Mick read a fairly obscure Russian novel (MASTER AND MARGARITA) as part of the inspiration for "Sympathy for the Devil" ... but he was conflicted about whether he really wanted you to know that or not. Similarly, on tour in 1969, Mick would sometimes deflect questions about The Stones as pop culture avatars ... and then sometimes he would say things like (and I'm paraphrasing here) "it's different this tour. Some nights you feel like the audience want something more than the music from you."

But I agree that ultimately they were more comfortable with the roles you suggest for them. They were never true revolutionaries, 'cause what, after all, could a poor boy do 'cept sing for a rock'n'roll band?

Back in the 60's, a very famous novelist (someone like Norman Mailer) once said of Jagger that had he not been a rock singer he could have been a very good novelist. This writer was thinking of songs like "Play with Fire," "Mother's Little Helper," and "19th Nervous Breakdown," songs which not only captured a society on the brink of traumatic change but which featured telling killer details that could capture a family drama in just one line.

The fact is they were really good writers and could obviously write really catchy pop tunes. They were so good that it became impossible NOT to see them as better artists than they saw themselves as. It's just a shame, at least in my humble opinion, that they chose to abandon that part of their muse.

and then sometimes he would say things like (and I'm paraphrasing here) "it's different this tour. Some nights you feel like the audience want something more than the music from you."

Yeah I'd say most nights the ladies in the audience do indeed want something more....lol

Back in the 60's, a very famous novelist (someone like Norman Mailer) once said of Jagger that had he not been a rock singer he could have been a very good novelist. This writer was thinking of songs like "Play with Fire," "Mother's Little Helper," and "19th Nervous Breakdown," songs which not only captured a society on the brink of traumatic change but which featured telling killer details that could capture a family drama in just one line.

The fact is they were really good writers and could obviously write really catchy pop tunes. They were so good that it became impossible NOT to see them as better artists than they saw themselves as. It's just a shame, at least in my humble opinion, that they chose to abandon that part of their muse.

Sounds logical to me. I'm not sure though if they abandoned that part of their muse as much as it abandoned them.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Naturalust
With all the posts here about the Stones losing relevance some 35-40 years ago (mine included) I guess we're all just a bunch of nostalgic fools to still be such big fans. I'm gonna go cry in my Corn Flakes now.

Thankfully great music is lasting, timeless and if it still makes you feel good, relevance becomes somewhat meaningless. Relevant to the times, to social values and such is seemingly less important that some would believe. I'm sure a lot of us developed our attitudes about social values and such long ago and they probably haven't changed much.

I don't even know what relevant Stones music would look or sound like in modern times...Sweet Neo Con? Google Shelter? There is obviously a relevance in the nostalgia of those powerful times of the 60's and 70's, a relevance in making sure we don't forget what made us who we are....the children of Rock and Roll.

I think there may be a different way of looking at this question of nostagia/relevance. For instance, if you take as fact that The Stones "best" music was produced nearly 50 years ago and that "most" of what they have produced since then will not stand the test of time, then it's possible to view the band in history, rather than as a current entity. We don't see The Beatles in this way; they are consigned to the dustbin or the exalted altar (depending on your perspective) of history. The Stones can really be seen in the same way, even though they are still active performers.

Imagine you are living in Germany in 1645. It might be possible to view J.S. Bach's best works as all at least 20 years old. You might bemoan Bach's most recent output, but would that make it impossible for you to still love the stuff he composed in the 1620's? Could you be a fan of Bach's music (from a historical perspective) but really not be very interested in what Bach was doing currently? Of course you could.

(BTW, two caveats: 1) I am not attempting a comparison between Bach and Jagger/Richards; humanity will still be tapping its toes to the 1st mvmnt of the 5th Brandenburg Cto long after Jumpin Jack Flash has been forgotten, and 2) Bach wrote great music in his later years; it's just that most of his "hits" were written decades earlier. In this sense, perhaps Bach was a bit more like Dylan.)

One of the things this board has helped me realize is that I do not like the current band but that I like the band I first fell in love with just as much as I ever did. I've learned to stay off the "live updates" pages from that night's current concert because a) I refuse to read about another person who cannot use Periscope, and b) I don't want to be a "whiner" and hang around carping about what the band used to be to a bunch of people trying to have a good time at the "best concert ever." Threads like this one have become one of the few areas I feel comfortable in and that I check regularly because I find interesting the level of critical discussion about an important band.

Regarding the question of what "relevant" Stones music might sound like in 2015: I'm not sure "relevant" is the best term here. It would be impossible for the band to be relevant today the way they were in 1969. (You could even argue it's impossible for ANY musician today to be as vital a component of society and pop culture today as musicians were in the 60's and 70's.) I would phrase it more like: what would good honest new Stones music sound like in 2015? What if they had kept on crawling up the rotting arsehole of Americana in EXILE and just never stopped? Gone on past the swamplands and voodoo marshes to a place that would make Nick Cave's Grinderman records sound like The Carpenters?

We could've been smokin dope with Dylan in 1965 during the Highway 61 sessions and with Mick and Keith between takes of "Satisfaction." We could've wondered what each might sound like in 50 years. With Dylan we have the answer: "Pay in Blood," "Early Roman Kings," "Roll On John," electric blues filtered through a 70-year-old poet's eyes. With The Stones, we will never know. Because they stopped. They're part of history now.

I think if you talked to Dylan (or read his autobiography which I'm sure you have and if not I highly recommend) you would get a sense that he was truly a guy who wanted to create new sounds, new ideas, new lyrics for capturing the world he saw around him. Like his namesake, Dylan Thomas, he sought to forge something new in the world in his art, and he does think of himself as an artist.

I think the Stones, on the other hand, view themselves more as a troupe of traveling musicians, on the road, bringing their music to new crowds, spreading a gospel that has been handed down for several generations now. i almost think back to Tudor england and ragged ruffians riding from town to town earning gold pieces for their songs. I don't think the Stones ever really considered themselves artists, although we do (and history will.) hence Mick's self-deprication and Keith's stories about being locked in the bathroom and snoring on the tape. (you'd never hear dylan talking like that.)

In other words, I think the Stones are more in the tradition of Muddy Waters and BB King, who did what they did - played music to crowds at an amazing level of performance and showmanship, until they passed (rest in peace) than they are, say, JS Bach or Bob Dylan (same caveats as you have above), where writing songs and creating art were explicitly on the agenda.

If you view the Stones through this lens, I think you can enjoy listening to them still, just as while I don't think BB King topped live at the Regal it was still amazing to see him play in "How Blue Can you Get" in the 1990s.

said more concisely, i think that the stones always underestimated themselves, and we always overestimated them, which ultimately has led to us hanging out on threads like this one.

I think you've put your finger on one aspect of The Stones creative personae, Turner. They've always been at odds with the idea of themselves as artists. On the one hand, they've wanted to be "cool," and dismissive of themselves (e.g. "oh yeah, what album was that on?"); at the risk of some dime-store psychology, this can sometimes be the sign of someone who wants to take the piss out of themselves before someone else does it for them. It's vulnerable work, putting yourself out there.

I think they've also never wanted to embrace their more intellectual side, or their roles as cultural lightning rods back in the day. I mean, Mick read a fairly obscure Russian novel (MASTER AND MARGARITA) as part of the inspiration for "Sympathy for the Devil" ... but he was conflicted about whether he really wanted you to know that or not. Similarly, on tour in 1969, Mick would sometimes deflect questions about The Stones as pop culture avatars ... and then sometimes he would say things like (and I'm paraphrasing here) "it's different this tour. Some nights you feel like the audience want something more than the music from you."

But I agree that ultimately they were more comfortable with the roles you suggest for them. They were never true revolutionaries, 'cause what, after all, could a poor boy do 'cept sing for a rock'n'roll band?

Back in the 60's, a very famous novelist (someone like Norman Mailer) once said of Jagger that had he not been a rock singer he could have been a very good novelist. This writer was thinking of songs like "Play with Fire," "Mother's Little Helper," and "19th Nervous Breakdown," songs which not only captured a society on the brink of traumatic change but which featured telling killer details that could capture a family drama in just one line.

The fact is they were really good writers and could obviously write really catchy pop tunes. They were so good that it became impossible NOT to see them as better artists than they saw themselves as. It's just a shame, at least in my humble opinion, that they chose to abandon that part of their muse.

Longbeach you have really given it some thought. I have always thought the songs they wrote between 67' and say 74' show that they were very well read and very enlightened. maybe when the drugs wore off, the enlightenment faded with it. so from that point on, they kind of took the piss out of themselves before anyone else did.. Because they could not go back there to that place where the inspiration flowed, where consciousness becomes unconscious. they have never really created like that since.. just maybe they stopped being inspired by the right influences once they got caught up in their own myth as opposed to just being creative as it happens..

I've been enjoying both mixes of Plundered My Soul, the best release they've had in eons, lately. It's fantastic.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
Naturalust
With all the posts here about the Stones losing relevance some 35-40 years ago (mine included) I guess we're all just a bunch of nostalgic fools to still be such big fans. I'm gonna go cry in my Corn Flakes now.

Thankfully great music is lasting, timeless and if it still makes you feel good, relevance becomes somewhat meaningless. Relevant to the times, to social values and such is seemingly less important that some would believe. I'm sure a lot of us developed our attitudes about social values and such long ago and they probably haven't changed much.

I don't even know what relevant Stones music would look or sound like in modern times...Sweet Neo Con? Google Shelter? There is obviously a relevance in the nostalgia of those powerful times of the 60's and 70's, a relevance in making sure we don't forget what made us who we are....the children of Rock and Roll.

I think there may be a different way of looking at this question of nostagia/relevance. For instance, if you take as fact that The Stones "best" music was produced nearly 50 years ago and that "most" of what they have produced since then will not stand the test of time, then it's possible to view the band in history, rather than as a current entity. We don't see The Beatles in this way; they are consigned to the dustbin or the exalted altar (depending on your perspective) of history. The Stones can really be seen in the same way, even though they are still active performers.

Imagine you are living in Germany in 1645. It might be possible to view J.S. Bach's best works as all at least 20 years old. You might bemoan Bach's most recent output, but would that make it impossible for you to still love the stuff he composed in the 1620's? Could you be a fan of Bach's music (from a historical perspective) but really not be very interested in what Bach was doing currently? Of course you could.

(BTW, two caveats: 1) I am not attempting a comparison between Bach and Jagger/Richards; humanity will still be tapping its toes to the 1st mvmnt of the 5th Brandenburg Cto long after Jumpin Jack Flash has been forgotten, and 2) Bach wrote great music in his later years; it's just that most of his "hits" were written decades earlier. In this sense, perhaps Bach was a bit more like Dylan.)

One of the things this board has helped me realize is that I do not like the current band but that I like the band I first fell in love with just as much as I ever did. I've learned to stay off the "live updates" pages from that night's current concert because a) I refuse to read about another person who cannot use Periscope, and b) I don't want to be a "whiner" and hang around carping about what the band used to be to a bunch of people trying to have a good time at the "best concert ever." Threads like this one have become one of the few areas I feel comfortable in and that I check regularly because I find interesting the level of critical discussion about an important band.

Regarding the question of what "relevant" Stones music might sound like in 2015: I'm not sure "relevant" is the best term here. It would be impossible for the band to be relevant today the way they were in 1969. (You could even argue it's impossible for ANY musician today to be as vital a component of society and pop culture today as musicians were in the 60's and 70's.) I would phrase it more like: what would good honest new Stones music sound like in 2015? What if they had kept on crawling up the rotting arsehole of Americana in EXILE and just never stopped? Gone on past the swamplands and voodoo marshes to a place that would make Nick Cave's Grinderman records sound like The Carpenters?

We could've been smokin dope with Dylan in 1965 during the Highway 61 sessions and with Mick and Keith between takes of "Satisfaction." We could've wondered what each might sound like in 50 years. With Dylan we have the answer: "Pay in Blood," "Early Roman Kings," "Roll On John," electric blues filtered through a 70-year-old poet's eyes. With The Stones, we will never know. Because they stopped. They're part of history now.

I think if you talked to Dylan (or read his autobiography which I'm sure you have and if not I highly recommend) you would get a sense that he was truly a guy who wanted to create new sounds, new ideas, new lyrics for capturing the world he saw around him. Like his namesake, Dylan Thomas, he sought to forge something new in the world in his art, and he does think of himself as an artist.

I think the Stones, on the other hand, view themselves more as a troupe of traveling musicians, on the road, bringing their music to new crowds, spreading a gospel that has been handed down for several generations now. i almost think back to Tudor england and ragged ruffians riding from town to town earning gold pieces for their songs. I don't think the Stones ever really considered themselves artists, although we do (and history will.) hence Mick's self-deprication and Keith's stories about being locked in the bathroom and snoring on the tape. (you'd never hear dylan talking like that.)

In other words, I think the Stones are more in the tradition of Muddy Waters and BB King, who did what they did - played music to crowds at an amazing level of performance and showmanship, until they passed (rest in peace) than they are, say, JS Bach or Bob Dylan (same caveats as you have above), where writing songs and creating art were explicitly on the agenda.

If you view the Stones through this lens, I think you can enjoy listening to them still, just as while I don't think BB King topped live at the Regal it was still amazing to see him play in "How Blue Can you Get" in the 1990s.

said more concisely, i think that the stones always underestimated themselves, and we always overestimated them, which ultimately has led to us hanging out on threads like this one.

I think you've put your finger on one aspect of The Stones creative personae, Turner. They've always been at odds with the idea of themselves as artists. On the one hand, they've wanted to be "cool," and dismissive of themselves (e.g. "oh yeah, what album was that on?"); at the risk of some dime-store psychology, this can sometimes be the sign of someone who wants to take the piss out of themselves before someone else does it for them. It's vulnerable work, putting yourself out there.

I think they've also never wanted to embrace their more intellectual side, or their roles as cultural lightning rods back in the day. I mean, Mick read a fairly obscure Russian novel (MASTER AND MARGARITA) as part of the inspiration for "Sympathy for the Devil" ... but he was conflicted about whether he really wanted you to know that or not. Similarly, on tour in 1969, Mick would sometimes deflect questions about The Stones as pop culture avatars ... and then sometimes he would say things like (and I'm paraphrasing here) "it's different this tour. Some nights you feel like the audience want something more than the music from you."

But I agree that ultimately they were more comfortable with the roles you suggest for them. They were never true revolutionaries, 'cause what, after all, could a poor boy do 'cept sing for a rock'n'roll band?

Back in the 60's, a very famous novelist (someone like Norman Mailer) once said of Jagger that had he not been a rock singer he could have been a very good novelist. This writer was thinking of songs like "Play with Fire," "Mother's Little Helper," and "19th Nervous Breakdown," songs which not only captured a society on the brink of traumatic change but which featured telling killer details that could capture a family drama in just one line.

The fact is they were really good writers and could obviously write really catchy pop tunes. They were so good that it became impossible NOT to see them as better artists than they saw themselves as. It's just a shame, at least in my humble opinion, that they chose to abandon that part of their muse.

Longbeach you have really given it some thought. I have always thought the songs they wrote between 67' and say 74' show that they were very well read and very enlightened. maybe when the drugs wore off, the enlightenment faded with it. so from that point on, they kind of took the piss out of themselves before anyone else did.. Because they could not go back there to that place where the inspiration flowed, where consciousness becomes unconscious. they have never really created like that since.. just maybe they stopped being inspired by the right influences once they got caught up in their own myth as opposed to just being creative as it happens..

Yeah, It's really anyone's guess, isn't it? History is full of artists in all media who burned brightly for a time and then for a variety of reasons could just never regain the spark that made them successful. And in the world of pop culture, trends come and go so quickly, it's remarkable how long The Stones stayed on top, relatively speaking. Their 20 or so years from the early 60's to the early 80's will be very hard to beat.

And it's not like they stopped trying. But the records just got further and further apart, and the hits stopped coming, and by 1989 it became clear that they didn't need any more hits, that they could just focus on the preservation of their live act and they'd be richer than they ever imagined.

But why they stopped being able to write songs that became warhorses? I guess that will always be one of the enduring mysteries about the Jagger/Richards partnership. Perhaps when all is said and done it's better to appreciate all the songs they did write rather than bemoan all the songs they never wrote (which I am very definitely guilty of!)

Quote
LongBeachArena72
But why they stopped being able to write songs that became warhorses? I guess that will always be one of the enduring mysteries about the Jagger/Richards partnership. Perhaps when all is said and done it's better to appreciate all the songs they did write rather than bemoan all the songs they never wrote (which I am very definitely guilty of!)

Perhaps they are just musical conduits as Keith has suggested and there just isn't anymore warhorses floating around the ether for them to pick up on?

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
LongBeachArena72
But why they stopped being able to write songs that became warhorses? I guess that will always be one of the enduring mysteries about the Jagger/Richards partnership. Perhaps when all is said and done it's better to appreciate all the songs they did write rather than bemoan all the songs they never wrote (which I am very definitely guilty of!)

Perhaps they are just musical conduits as Keith has suggested and there just isn't anymore warhorses floating around the ether for them to pick up on?

Exactly! Well put...Theres only some many combinations of notes that can be put together..

Jesus H Christ (saying reverently)

PLUNDERED MY SOUL

I missed this! I have listened to Exile more times than it's been sold.

Thanks to reading GasLightStreet quick mention,

immediate download transported to happiness. It's freakin' gorgeous.

Off to feign exercise to be alone from fam to listen over over while walking.

What Else Did I Miss off Exile re-release vault type missed off original?!

THANK YOU!

They became too self aware to escape into songwriting. Also fans are aware of them beyond their persona. "I was born in a crossfire hurricane", people here would say, "no he wasn't." Time takes away the part of mystique needed to convey a creative message. Both D&G and OMS were written direct from Mick and Keith, shouting opinions and cleverisms, it is hard to Get Back a sense of distance and story. Of course they could still make amazing blues style stuff if MT was on board, instead they prefer to be a Rock and roll band which ultimately is their correct course.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-12 19:41 by DoomandGloom.

Quote
DoomandGloom
They became too self aware to escape into songwriting. Also fans are aware of them beyond their persona. "I was born in a crossfire hurricane", people here would say, "no he wasn't." Time takes away the part of mystique needed to convey a creative message. Both D&G and OMS were written direct from Mick and Keith, shouting opinions and cleverisms, it is hard to Get Back a sense of distance and story. Of course they could still make amazing blues style stuff if MT was on board, instead they prefer to be a Rock and roll band which ultimately is their correct course.

well put.

the most honest/real music i have heard from them in the past 30 years has been keith's ballads about "losing my touch".. "slipping away"... etc. he has actually provided the tale of his journey from explosive creativeness to a mere mortal. nothing people write about their diminished skills on this board would surprise him - he provided the warning to us on Steel Wheels.

even "one more shot" can be read as being in this theme, although it obviously isn't quite as honest (it suggests that with one more shot something might change) and more a re-hash of the theme, dressed up as a pseudo-commercial sounding rocker. perhaps that's because mick and not keith was singing it.

What more to be said is there? If the Stones wished to still challenge themselves and their audience musically, it would be quite simple for them to do. They have proved time and again that they have no such interest. They have a formula that works, and they are not willing to alter it even by bringing back a celebrated band member to play on shows supposedly centered aroud one of their most celebrated albums. This is a nostalgia show - pure and simple. Anyone wanting anything different has basically been told where they can stick it.

Quote
71Tele
What more to be said is there? If the Stones wished to still challenge themselves and their audience musically, it would be quite simple for them to do. They have proved time and again that they have no such interest. They have a formula that works, and they are not willing to alter it even by bringing back a celebrated band member to play on shows supposedly centered aroud one of their most celebrated albums. This is a nostalgia show - pure and simple. Anyone wanting anything different has basically been told where they can stick it.

Respectfully, can you not see that including a previous member of the band who left forty years ago will only serve to contribute to the nostalgia you mention?


I infer from your post that you dislike the band being 'nostalgi[c],' suggesting you would like to see the opposite - a version of the band that is forward-looking.


Answer me this: how is it possible to be looking both forwards and forty years into the past simultaneously?


The Stones are less of a 'nostalgia' act without Taylor.

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly

Quote
71Tele
What more to be said is there? If the Stones wished to still challenge themselves and their audience musically, it would be quite simple for them to do. They have proved time and again that they have no such interest. They have a formula that works, and they are not willing to alter it even by bringing back a celebrated band member to play on shows supposedly centered aroud one of their most celebrated albums. This is a nostalgia show - pure and simple. Anyone wanting anything different has basically been told where they can stick it.

Respectfully, can you not see that including a previous member of the band who left forty years ago will only serve to contribute to the nostalgia you mention?


I infer from your post that you dislike the band being 'nostalgi[c],' suggesting you would like to see the opposite - a version of the band that is forward-looking.


Answer me this: how is it possible to be looking both forwards and forty years into the past simultaneously?


The Stones are less of a 'nostalgia' act without Taylor.

Spot on. But I am sure there will be another 50 pages of posts to tell you that you're missing the point.

Quote
Olly

Quote
71Tele
What more to be said is there? If the Stones wished to still challenge themselves and their audience musically, it would be quite simple for them to do. They have proved time and again that they have no such interest. They have a formula that works, and they are not willing to alter it even by bringing back a celebrated band member to play on shows supposedly centered aroud one of their most celebrated albums. This is a nostalgia show - pure and simple. Anyone wanting anything different has basically been told where they can stick it.

Respectfully, can you not see that including a previous member of the band who left forty years ago will only serve to contribute to the nostalgia you mention?


I infer from your post that you dislike the band being 'nostalgi[c],' suggesting you would like to see the opposite - a version of the band that is forward-looking.


Answer me this: how is it possible to be looking both forwards and forty years into the past simultaneously?


The Stones are less of a 'nostalgia' act without Taylor.

you are both talking about different things.

71Tele is talking about musically doing more than just trying to replicate the sound on the record as much as possible. Taylor of course excels as this, as his strength is improvisation. No 2 shows sound alike with Taylor. (by the way, the answer to the question "why haven't they including MT more?" is contained in this point... they don't want improvisation!)

You are talking about something bigger I think, the image/feel/energy of a Stones show and you have a point that bringing back members from 40 years ago is full of nostalgia. But musically, it's more challenging and interesting than Chuck tinkling.

if he is well

either in the studio or on the road

anything's possible, but if there's been any bad blood that's been generated by his uninviting on this leg, I'd say chances are slim.

I think he's still sick...or still gonna be...

Quote
Munichhilton
I think he's still sick...or still gonna be...

I've heard that's the plan.