I want to tip toe into the Taylor discussion's through fear and trepidation of getting a hundred Taylorites jumping down my throat. but here goes anyway lol.
This is not a wind up, its something i have thought for a long time.
Mick Taylor as incredible as his playing is, can to my mind be so overpowering in the early seventies live, that he kind of drowns out the stones. So as good as he was, if he had continued to play such blistering solo's all over the place, might he of taken something away from the stones sound. Might Taylor of ended up being some growing force that powered over every ballad and kind of takes over proceedings in the guitar hero tradition of someone like Slash with Guns and Roses.
i think Keith gave him so much freedom to play, i cant for the life of me see how he could possibly have any complaints about the Stones.
Did he ever reveal why he left , i heard Ronnie say that MT said to him he found it too restricting creatively with the Stones. Surely not when it came to plating live. when you see him in 72' playing street fighting man he invented the phrase ''on fire'' he torched and incinerated the place lol
Personally i do think the Taylor years were the best, be it live or recording, and i love Taylor's contributions but he might of just maybe blown the stones out of the field had he continued. which admittedly could have been a good thing if you get my drift. sorry

Excellent posts here, thank you.

Longbeach's description of 'relevance downhill' of the Stones during early 70's is a spot one me thinks. Or at least matching with my readings and observations.... What has always amazed me how quickly it all happened. Without no doubt they were the definition of relevance and coolness in 1969, and after the Beatles call it quits, easily the biggest band in the world. And suddenly, 'yesterday's papers'... This didn't mean that whatever they ever did wasn't always big news (especially the tours), it was, but behind the hype, the 'kids' started to have new, more current heroes to follow (especially Zeppelin and Bowie).

It could be that GOATS HEAD SOUP, lead by that easy-listenable ballad 'everybody loved', was not a kind of album to charm the trend-following kids of the day, but I think the troubles actually started to occurring thanks to the previous album.

Even though EXILE is no doubt is one of the best albums ever made (everybody agrees with that nowadays), it probably was not a kind of album to reflect the zeitgeist, setting new trends, giving soundtrack to one's lives, offering anthems to live for ... There was no "Gimme Shelter", no "Sympathy For The Devil", "Street Fighting Man", "You Can't Always Get What You Want", no radio friendly instant single hits like "Brown Sugar", "Honky Tonk Women", "Flash", "Ruby Tuesday", "Paint It Black", "Satisfaction" in it... No, EXILE defies time and place, and that's why it sounds today as good - or even better - as it did in 1972. EXILE was a deep, not an easily accessible excercise on the music the Stones loved, looking more inside, and trusting their own intuition and taste, than outside. A personal journey on all the American music they've loved all the years, and they released it all, with no compromises, no worries about its 'relevance', commercial value or anything. Like a statement 'that is what we are, and that is the music we love'. Thanks to its 'purity', their most daring and ambitious album, probably. In a way, it was an updated version of their first album, then consisting of amateurish covers of their beloved American music, now served with a matured, experienced originality, touch and vision. Like one mission, finally, is completed.

But compared to their previous albums, all of them reflecting the zeitgest and the trends of the day... AFTERMATH, MAJESTIES, BEGGARS, BLEED...even a perfect sounding STICKY FINGERS was a statement that the Stones were as current, professional sounding rock band as any in 1971, and 'who remembers the 60's any longer?'. But EXILE goes beyond the place and time, it is build on eternity.

So, in a way I see that trusting their own muse and vision with EXILE they created a once-in-a life time rock and roll album, only them and no one else, even them before or again, ever were able to do, but that cost them their hip status as 'still current band', having a say in a contemporary music and world. From EXILE on, they were on their own, outside the trends of the day. I think Jagger has alawys been awere of that, and that's been one of the reasons he seem to have some doubts about the merits of this album. He, if any, has an excellent ear sensing things like that.

But like pointed out in this thread, what to do next, after giving 'all you got and more' to album like that? Mick and Keith had lost their ability to create zeitgeist-defining anthems (EXILE showed that), and in EXILE they had shown 'everything they know' as far as having an original, deep-going touch to any musical genre go, creating timeless rock and roll. (Two years later they would name their album "it's only rock'n'roll', but actually EXILE was a definitive showcase of that already.)

One can only understand the artistic exhaustion they had time. Where to go? What else there is (left) to say?

So EXILE put them on a path from where there was no return. They could flirt with whatever trends to come by (glam, latest black music trends, etc.), but it was not any longer them convincingly mastering them and creating an unique, convincing version of them, but more like adding some current flavor or variance to their established sound, and usually with not much effect on contemporary scene. Thanks to a good hype, their albums would reach #1 positions still, but they would drop quite quickly out of the charts, and during the time when album sales over-all were increasing, their sales started to decrease album by album. The merit of their mid-70's albums (GHS, IORR, B& is like following their own artistic development, but not much value as a reflection of the 70's music over-all. The Stones and their music were 'isolated'. The 'interesting' music, the soundtrack of the times, were to be found in somewhere else.

But, however, I think this is to be noted: although being 'passe' at the time, and not having much 'cultural value' outside die-hard Stones fan circles, these 'low period' albums have dated damn well, especially GHS and B&B, at least compared to their later (post-TATTOO YOU) efforts. They have an artistic merit within their own musical world, and they are genuine efforts still trying to follow a muse, and include many gems. I think especially GOATS HEAD SOUP is almost a masterpiece album, an interesting, moody 'hang-over' album after the fiesta of EXILE.

We could argue, with a justification, that they finally succeeded on SOME GIRLS, flirting with punk and disco, to an extent that they were more 'cool'and 'hip' again, even 'relevant', especially in America, but I will not go there now. Seemingly the zeitgeist during 'punk era' fitted well with 'it's only rock and roll' and their reputation as original rebels, but let that be another story...

It is true that their 'image' started to be a tricky one during 1972/73 as well, all that jet set thing, etc. but I still would argue that that would have been 'forgiven' if they would have come up with music that would have resonated better with the times (as "Miss You" and SOME GIRLS to an extent did).

Last thing, before the counter-criticism starts: what I think we need to remember, what Longbeach, for example, reminds us of, is that from where the Stones are stemming from, how damn big and relevant and cool they once were. That's the point of reference when we are talking about being 'relevant' or 'fashionable', etc. They once defined those terms.


And oh yeah, big thanks to BV for being the original inspiration behind all this reflection during the last pages....

A feedback is much appreciated!

- Doxa



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-10 15:43 by Doxa.

Short reaction from RDC to Doxa: >< to all your posts. Thank you.

Great post doxa

I can't recommend highly enough Lester bangs' reviews of the stones albums in the early 70s - no one matches how articulate he is about capturing how they were
Relevant, great, disappointing, dominant, etc and what happened as the 70s slid on. Without the benefit of hindsight! These are mostly now freely available on the Internet although his collections are worth the price.

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 it's more about younger generations persistently trying to recapture the spirit of a very powerful, enduring age. The 1960s were a tremendously optimistic time - in Britain, you had full employment, a young generation that had gone to university for the first time, and a (since long-lost) BBC that had balls and wasn't constantly trying to justify its own existence, but was rather interested in filling the airwaves with amazing stuff people had never seen or heard before. If you wanted to drop out of university to join John Mayall's Bluesbreakers (or just bunk off classes because jazz was more your thing), you could. People thought the world was their oyster, rightly so, and of course for the Stones the world really was their oyster. Perhaps I'm a little harsh in saying that the Stones are no longer relevant - after all, for a lot of people, they still provide a link back to those days when there was no austerity, society was more free and we were allowed to be optimistic about the future.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-10 21:57 by Stoneburst.

I respectfully disagree. The Taylor era albums
and live shows clearly reflect that his amazing
playing did not drown out Mick ,Keith or the rest of the band.
Rather, he added a element of a powerful lead which
in turn resulted in Keith becoming a greater rhythm guitar
player . There is no reason to assume that MT , like
the rest of the band would have evolved as well
had he remained. We may or may not have got
SomeGirls, bit hard to imagine that the output
would become so mediocre after his departure.

Quote
Stoneburst
I think it's more about younger generations persistently trying to recapture the spirit of a very powerful, enduring age. The 1960s were a tremendously optimistic time - in Britain, you had full employment, a young generation that had gone to university for the first time, and a (since long-lost) BBC that had balls and wasn't constantly trying to justify its own existence, but was rather interested in filling the airwaves with amazing stuff people had never seen or heard before. If you wanted to drop out of university to join John Mayall's Bluesbreakers (or just bunk off classes because jazz was more your thing), you could. People thought the world was their oyster, rightly so, and of course for the Stones the world really was their oyster. Perhaps I'm a little harsh in saying that the Stones are no longer relevant - after all, for a lot of people, they still provide a link back to those days when there was no austerity, society was more free and we were allowed to be optimistic about the future.

well the Stones have gone from anti establishment to establishment. They kind of are the elite now. They are more like stage performers these days as opposed to creative artists. Given their ages that's ok. They did the hard part now they are reaping the rewards.
The world you just described in the 60's, and 70's to some extent, was never going to be allowed by the powers that be. You cant have people having freedom power and liberation. oh no that won't do will it lol. A lot has changed since then, people have become sheeple and its the same with the music industry. its controlled and governed by ..... never mind, i just remembered you must not get political so that's that ..

Quote
Brstonesfan
I respectfully disagree. The Taylor era albums
and live shows clearly reflect that his amazing
playing did not drown out Mick ,Keith or the rest of the band.
Rather, he added a element of a powerful lead which
in turn resulted in Keith becoming a greater rhythm guitar
player . There is no reason to assume that MT , like
the rest of the band would have evolved as well
had he remained. We may or may not have got
SomeGirls, bit hard to imagine that the output
would become so mediocre after his departure.

your probably right, i don't think Jagger's ego as he got older would have had any guitarists steeling his thunder. its why he would not tour between 82' and 89' Keith became to much of a force for him. Keith had to bow to Mick in the end for any sort of collaboration to work between them

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.

Naturalust,

I admire your point, but relevance is largely subjective.

As you state, great music lasts, giving that music and it's creators longevity. As a fan in their 20s, the Stones didn't become relevant to me, to my personal and social outlook, until 2002.

My 2002 was an older man's 1964.

I would also suggest that the band's social relevance may have changed without necessarily having decreased.

.....

Olly.

It is very interesting that CW raised the issue on MT not being back on tour and CW obviously wanting him back...... and CW now just want the US tour to finished and going back to London.

CW, give MJ a punch in his face........ MT is thousand times better on stage than CL and MC. Why MJ absolutely want this stupid MC on stage is a wonder!!!!!!!

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Brstonesfan
I respectfully disagree. The Taylor era albums
and live shows clearly reflect that his amazing
playing did not drown out Mick ,Keith or the rest of the band.
Rather, he added a element of a powerful lead which
in turn resulted in Keith becoming a greater rhythm guitar
player . There is no reason to assume that MT , like
the rest of the band would have evolved as well
had he remained. We may or may not have got
SomeGirls, bit hard to imagine that the output
would become so mediocre after his departure.

your probably right, i don't think Jagger's ego as he got older would have had any guitarists steeling his thunder. its why he would not tour between 82' and 89' Keith became to much of a force for him. Keith had to bow to Mick in the end for any sort of collaboration to work between them

I agree with that. By 81 it had sadly become "Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones". Part of it was Keith's demurring to Mick on apparently most of the business dealings and tour plans because of his addictions at the time . Perhaps Jagger had no choice, but he certainly appeared to resent it when Keith cleaned up and was very unhappy with the way Jagger was using the band in the 80's as a way to launch a solo career. That did not justify Keith saying some of the mean spirited things which culminated in "Life" which show that basically the music partnership had died by the late 70's.
Anyway, I think MT would have been frustrated by that ongoing feud so perhaps that is why he left. My main point is, however, is that had MT stayed, I think the product would have certainly been better. MT may have had to adjust his playing to accommodate the rest of the band , but to suggest they were better without him seems contrary to the bands post Taylor output.

Quote
Brstonesfan

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
Brstonesfan
I respectfully disagree. The Taylor era albums
and live shows clearly reflect that his amazing
playing did not drown out Mick ,Keith or the rest of the band.
Rather, he added a element of a powerful lead which
in turn resulted in Keith becoming a greater rhythm guitar
player . There is no reason to assume that MT , like
the rest of the band would have evolved as well
had he remained. We may or may not have got
SomeGirls, bit hard to imagine that the output
would become so mediocre after his departure.

your probably right, i don't think Jagger's ego as he got older would have had any guitarists steeling his thunder. its why he would not tour between 82' and 89' Keith became to much of a force for him. Keith had to bow to Mick in the end for any sort of collaboration to work between them

I agree with that. By 81 it had sadly become "Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones". Part of it was Keith's demurring to Mick on apparently most of the business dealings and tour plans because of his addictions at the time . Perhaps Jagger had no choice, but he certainly appeared to resent it when Keith cleaned up and was very unhappy with the way Jagger was using the band in the 80's as a way to launch a solo career. That did not justify Keith saying some of the mean spirited things which culminated in "Life" which show that basically the music partnership had died by the late 70's.
Anyway, I think MT would have been frustrated by that ongoing feud so perhaps that is why he left. My main point is, however, is that had MT stayed, I think the product would have certainly been better. MT may have had to adjust his playing to accommodate the rest of the band , but to suggest they were better without him seems contrary to the bands post Taylor output.

Yes it goes without saying that the band would have been better with Taylor still in the band. but Ronnie being Ronnie with his lack of ego,and easy going nature, has a lot to do with why the stones have not fallen out to the point of distinction. With Charlie its the same, the Gemini duo of Ronnie and Charlie are the gel that bonds this band together leaving the two alpha males to thrash it out. I do believe that with the two Micks and Keith together it may of all become a bit too serious for the band to have lasted long term.
We will never know how the Stones would of sounded had Taylor stayed with the Stones, its very frustrating, bet it would of been awesome for a while, then burned out..

I guess this is what CW to some extent wanted with MT

[www.youtube.com]

and CW is dreaming about it..... every f.... night

Quote
mtaylor
It is very interesting that CW raised the issue on MT not being back on tour and CW obviously wanting him back...... and CW now just want the US tour to finished and going back to London.

CW, give MJ a punch in his face........ MT is thousand times better on stage than CL and MC. Why MJ absolutely want this stupid MC on stage is a wonder!!!!!!!

just for the record who is CL and MC

Quote
mtaylor
I guess this is what CW to some extent wanted with MT

[www.youtube.com]

and CW is dreaming about it..... every f.... night

but this is EC

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
mtaylor
It is very interesting that CW raised the issue on MT not being back on tour and CW obviously wanting him back...... and CW now just want the US tour to finished and going back to London.

CW, give MJ a punch in his face........ MT is thousand times better on stage than CL and MC. Why MJ absolutely want this stupid MC on stage is a wonder!!!!!!!

just for the record who is CL and MC

The two "great keyboard" players after Ian Stewart, McLagan etc.... that basically have limited Stones sound since 1982. CL is Chuck amd MC is Matt.

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
mtaylor
I guess this is what CW to some extent wanted with MT

[www.youtube.com]

and CW is dreaming about it..... every f.... night

but this is EC

But this is music MT could deliver..... and what CW wants to play with BW.

As read by the article, even CW has had enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-11 00:38 by mtaylor.

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
mtaylor
It is very interesting that CW raised the issue on MT not being back on tour and CW obviously wanting him back...... and CW now just want the US tour to finished and going back to London.

CW, give MJ a punch in his face........ MT is thousand times better on stage than CL and MC. Why MJ absolutely want this stupid MC on stage is a wonder!!!!!!!

just for the record who is CL and MC

The two "great keyboard" players after Ian Stewart, McLagan etc.... that basically have limited Stones sound since 1982. CL is Chuck amd MC is Matt.

totally agree with that, although they are more of a guitar band lately. looking back to 89' 90' the guitars were drowned out with way too many other instruments on stage, especially matt clifford. why is he back who needs him. oh i know Mick likes to go out to dinner with him..

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
mtaylor
It is very interesting that CW raised the issue on MT not being back on tour and CW obviously wanting him back...... and CW now just want the US tour to finished and going back to London.

CW, give MJ a punch in his face........ MT is thousand times better on stage than CL and MC. Why MJ absolutely want this stupid MC on stage is a wonder!!!!!!!

just for the record who is CL and MC

The two "great keyboard" players after Ian Stewart, McLagan etc.... that basically have limited Stones sound since 1982. CL is Chuck amd MC is Matt.

totally agree with that, although they are more of a guitar band lately. looking back to 89' 90' the guitars were drowned out with way too many other instruments on stage, especially matt clifford. why is he back who needs him. oh i know Mick likes to go out to dinner with him..

What is Matt Clifford doing in the band other that arranging YCGAGWYW??

I guess CW feels somehow annoyed!!! CW wants MT playing guitar rather than MC playing some pseudo blah, blah, blah bullshit thing........

That is why he says, let's get this part over.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-11 00:52 by mtaylor.

Quote
MattClifford
I take this as an offense. The Rolling Stones went onstage without a MC to announce them for years. Now that they finally have that again, people say: Who needs him? Where does it end?

To be honest, Matt Clifford is absolutely a waste of time, sorry.
Matt, please find something else to do than ruining Stones.
Drink a bottle of champagne or so, but don't interfere Stones music, that you don't understand.

nothing personal i just don't like synthesizers. we had that in 89' 90' i just did not think it went with the stones sound. one keyboard player is enough in my humble opinion. Don't take offence, its just my penny's worth. its allowed on iorr. cheers.

Quote
MattClifford
I take this as an offense. The Rolling Stones went onstage without a MC to announce them for years. Now that they finally have that again, people say: Who needs him? Where does it end?

well? do you have answers? who does need him? where does it end?

Quote
Olly

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.

Naturalust,

I admire your point, but relevance is largely subjective.

As you state, great music lasts, giving that music and it's creators longevity. As a fan in their 20s, the Stones didn't become relevant to me, to my personal and social outlook, until 2002.

My 2002 was an older man's 1964.

I would also suggest that the band's social relevance may have changed without necessarily having decreased.

Yep all good points Olly. Relevance can be widely interpreted depending of what context it refers to. Obviously the Stones are still relevant at some level to us or we wouldn't be here talking about them. Although their recent music may not be relevant, the music they created in the past still is as are their live shows, imo. I think the loss of relevance most people refer to is related to music they created after 1981.

I, like you, didn't discover the Stones till after many people thought their relevance ended. I still think there best music was created before I discovered them, during the Taylor era. That music is still relevant to me and to them as they continue to make millions playing it.

Their social relevance is a bit more complex to analyze, changed as you say for sure...they still get plenty of press and are a big damn deal when they come to town but they really aren't the lifestyle warriors and representatives of a free spirited generation like they once seemed to be. They are kings and knights of the realm, probably a bit too out of touch with the average person to ever be relevant in that context again, imho.

But I know lots of people who tried to emulate them in one way or another...picking up guitars, taking drugs, androgyny, bohemian lifestyle, growing long hair,writing songs, etc.....they sure made a splash on society and culture at one time and the ripples are still visible.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Olly

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.

Naturalust,

I admire your point, but relevance is largely subjective.

As you state, great music lasts, giving that music and it's creators longevity. As a fan in their 20s, the Stones didn't become relevant to me, to my personal and social outlook, until 2002.

My 2002 was an older man's 1964.

I would also suggest that the band's social relevance may have changed without necessarily having decreased.

Yep all good points Olly. Relevance can be widely interpreted depending of what context it refers to. Obviously the Stones are still relevant at some level to us or we wouldn't be here talking about them. Although their recent music may not be relevant, the music they created in the past still is as are their live shows, imo. I think the loss of relevance most people refer to is related to music they created after 1981.

I, like you, didn't discover the Stones till after many people thought their relevance ended. I still think there best music was created before I discovered them, during the Taylor era. That music is still relevant to me and to them as they continue to make millions playing it.

Their social relevance is a bit more complex to analyze, changed as you say for sure...they still get plenty of press and are a big damn deal when they come to town but they really aren't the lifestyle warriors and representatives of a free spirited generation like they once seemed to be. They are kings and knights of the realm, probably a bit too out of touch with the average person to ever be relevant in that context again, imho.

But I know lots of people who tried to emulate them in one way or another...picking up guitars, taking drugs, androgyny, bohemian lifestyle, growing long hair,writing songs, etc.....they sure made a splash on society and culture at one time and the ripples are still visible.

Tell me about it. I wanted to be Keith so much i drank and partied like him for 34 years lol. its catching me up though. He appears to have stopped all that, so i have followed. Feels good..

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Olly

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.

Naturalust,

I admire your point, but relevance is largely subjective.

As you state, great music lasts, giving that music and it's creators longevity. As a fan in their 20s, the Stones didn't become relevant to me, to my personal and social outlook, until 2002.

My 2002 was an older man's 1964.

I would also suggest that the band's social relevance may have changed without necessarily having decreased.

Yep all good points Olly. Relevance can be widely interpreted depending of what context it refers to. Obviously the Stones are still relevant at some level to us or we wouldn't be here talking about them. Although their recent music may not be relevant, the music they created in the past still is as are their live shows, imo. I think the loss of relevance most people refer to is related to music they created after 1981.

I, like you, didn't discover the Stones till after many people thought their relevance ended. I still think there best music was created before I discovered them, during the Taylor era. That music is still relevant to me and to them as they continue to make millions playing it.

Their social relevance is a bit more complex to analyze, changed as you say for sure...they still get plenty of press and are a big damn deal when they come to town but they really aren't the lifestyle warriors and representatives of a free spirited generation like they once seemed to be. They are kings and knights of the realm, probably a bit too out of touch with the average person to ever be relevant in that context again, imho.

But I know lots of people who tried to emulate them in one way or another...picking up guitars, taking drugs, androgyny, bohemian lifestyle, growing long hair,writing songs, etc.....they sure made a splash on society and culture at one time and the ripples are still visible.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-11 01:41 by Turner68.

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.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-11 02:07 by nightskyman.

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.

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.

I remember a K R interview and he said he wondered what all the fuss was about. He said we are playing and i'm watching Mick and Charlie and Ronnie, and he thinks to himself, am i missing something. He thinks there must be something more than just us in a room. And it is just that. A magical chemistry where the whole is so much more than its parts.