Quote
Olly

Quote
LongBeachArena72


Hi, Olly--

I am interested in art, specifically in the creation of works of art that will stand the test of time. Performance is an art, certainly, but, and this is only my opinion, it is a lesser art than the act of creating something new.

Plus, The Stones attitude toward performance is very conservative. They tend not to vary their approach much at all (not talking about setlists here; talking rather about things like musical arrangements). This makes it hard to really feel that they are truly pushing the envelope in their approach to live performance.

Ultimately, they are what they are. They had a longer run of creating vital new music than almost any other band, and then they were smart enough to capitalize on that output for the next 35 years. They are a commercial juggernaut, a good-time party band capable of repeating their greatest songs with an uncanny precision ... and they have abdicated their artistic questing, entirely.

Very interesting.

For me, their 'artistic questing' is evident each and every time they take the stage.

I find your comment regarding arrangements interesting.

I immediately thought of Page and Plant's No Quarter album, with its inventive re-interpretations of songs...

...The big difference, of course, is that this occurred after the main event; it was an imaginative act of nostalgia in many ways; a coda, if you will

Had Led Zepelin been in existence in the 1990s, would they have produced a similar sound to the one featured on No Quarter? Possibly.

Perhaps it is the celebrated longevity of The Rolling Stones that has limited their creativity.

Pop music is often evaluated by its "relevance," its ability to both portray and rise above its times. It's nearly impossible to stay vital for more than a few years. If The Rolling Stones had broken up in '72 after EXILE, what would we think of them today? What would history make of them? What about if they'd called it quits in '78, or '81?

There's no way of knowing, of course. They haven't been able to produce a record that mattered, that captured its times, since 1981. Have what they done since then made them anything more than a shit-ton of money? Has that output added at all to the library of songs for which they will ultimately be remembered?

Quote
keefriffhards
you mean at 72 its not a good enough reason to not make an album.
even though they tour all the time, don't you want them to have any life.
most rock stars that age are dead or in care homes.
its not just there age they done some miles haven't they.
Keith's got an album to bring our after this and maybe a winos tour.
is that not creative enough for you..

If they tour all the time, how much of a life can they have?

And no, it's not...

Quote
Rokyfan
People say that because they have done one album of new music in however many years it has been, and because as a live band, the abandon their new music and have become an oldies act. They play one song - Doom and Gloom - so people can't say that the newest thing in their set is 30 years old. Those are facts. (personally, I wish they had kept a lot of the newer stuff in the set and developed it, but they did not)

Some fans wish they had done more on the creative side rather than just cranking out the greatest hits tours. That doesn't mean anyone is not a fan, or can't recognize that they are still they best at what they do and that they have the best catalog in rock and roll. But they have not been a creative entity for decades.

ok fine i hear what your saying. but its a bit late to expect a change now. they been this way since 89'

Quote
Rollin' Stoner

Quote
keefriffhards

you want so much from the stones you lot, you want them to bleed for you.

no I meant it...excuses, excuses...I only want Iggy to bleed for me

now, now...
...........but would you think the boy is strange?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-23 23:40 by CloudCat.

Quote
CloudCat

Quote
Rollin' Stoner

Quote
keefriffhards

you want so much from the stones you lot, you want them to bleed for you.

no I meant it...excuses, excuses...I only want Iggy to bleed for me

now, now...
...........but would you think the boy is strange?

It would satsify me if Mick would let his feelings flood on the page...

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
CloudCat

Quote
Rollin' Stoner

Quote
keefriffhards

you want so much from the stones you lot, you want them to bleed for you.

no I meant it...excuses, excuses...I only want Iggy to bleed for me

now, now...
...........but would you think the boy is strange?

It would satsify me if Mick would let his feelings flood on the page...

oh dear did you guys not get enough love from your mummy. it shows..

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
CloudCat

Quote
Rollin' Stoner

Quote
keefriffhards

you want so much from the stones you lot, you want them to bleed for you.

no I meant it...excuses, excuses...I only want Iggy to bleed for me

now, now...
...........but would you think the boy is strange?

It would satsify me if Mick would let his feelings flood on the page...

oh dear did you guys not get enough love from your mummy. it shows..

No doubt........
but I do like rock 'n roll
and I love the Rolling Stones

Quote
CloudCat

Quote
keefriffhards

Quote
HearMeKnockin

Quote
CloudCat

Quote
Rollin' Stoner

Quote
keefriffhards

you want so much from the stones you lot, you want them to bleed for you.

no I meant it...excuses, excuses...I only want Iggy to bleed for me

now, now...
...........but would you think the boy is strange?

It would satsify me if Mick would let his feelings flood on the page...

oh dear did you guys not get enough love from your mummy. it shows..

No doubt........
but I do like rock 'n roll
and I love the Rolling Stones

cool .

Okey, I'll swallow the bait then. LBA 72 is basically right here. The Stones have had an outstanding longevity. But every band has a limited creative period. Even the Stones. They peaked artistically around 1972. Which is very obvious if you study their recent setlists. They managed to stay, somewhat, relevant throughout the seventies and the Tattoo You tour can, in may ways, be seen as their last tour. Then they arose like Phoenix from the ashes in 1989. But that's another story...

I posted this in the other thread on the same tired topic.

Before going on tour in 2012, Mick did 8 new vocal tracks for the Exile rerelease, the SuperHeavy album (16 tracks, most co-written by him) and the will.i.am single; Ronnie released I Feel Like Playing (12 tracks, all written or cowritten by him); and good ol' Charlie toured with his band, The ABCD of Boogie Woogie and released a live album from the tour. The Stones, of course, did two new tracks for Grrr. That's a ton of new music, covering a wide variety of styles. It was for the most part, critically well received. No one bought it, of course.

It's ironic - we complain that the Stones just play music from 40 years ago, but we don't like the new music they release because, well, it doesn't sound like the music they did 40 years ago.

I think what hurts most is they have become irrelevant
as pointed out above by not capturing the pulse of
the USA or Europe since Tattoo You. I think they had a
lot more to offer but for the rift between Mick and Keith.

Quote
Brstonesfan
I think what hurts most is they have become irrelevant
as pointed out above by not capturing the pulse of
the USA or Europe since Tattoo You. I think they had a
lot more to offer but for the rift between Mick and Keith.

"Relevance"? Rock stars? Was Muddy Waters relevant during his later years? No. Did he capture the pulse of the USA? No. Was BB King relevant? No. Was Johnny Winter? No. Stevie Ray Vaughn? Nope. But, they sure were great.

Who is "relevant"? Bruce? Bono? Eddie Vedder? Billie Joe Armstrong? Muse? EDM? J-Pop? I guess maybe. . .

Well, I love all those guys in Group A, and I'll be happy if the Stones are remembered as being part of that group.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-24 00:34 by drbryant.

Maybe just one CD in 17 years or 2 CDs in 18 years, 3 CDs in the last 21 years or 4 CDs in the last 26 years.... and then solo albums, some deluxe versions with new songs, RS movies, own movie projects, books, paintings, jazz projects etc.... a big number of concerts.... and not the least, one of the bands with the biggest number of written songs through their worklife......

Could be more CDs, but we can not complain. Most artists / groups would be happy or would have retired at this stage in life ...
Macca and Neil Young have the freedom to produce records themselves without asking other bandmembers... partially the same with Bruce S....

Quote
drbryant
I posted this in the other thread on the same tired topic.

Before going on tour in 2012, Mick did 8 new vocal tracks for the Exile rerelease, the SuperHeavy album (16 tracks, most co-written by him) and the will.i.am single; Ronnie released I Feel Like Playing (12 tracks, all written or cowritten by him); and good ol' Charlie toured with his band, The ABCD of Boogie Woogie and released a live album from the tour. The Stones, of course, did two new tracks for Grrr. That's a ton of new music, covering a wide variety of styles. It was for the most part, critically well received. No one bought it, of course.

It's ironic - we complain that the Stones just play music from 40 years ago, but we don't like the new music they release because, well, it doesn't sound like the music they did 40 years ago.

To be fair, though, despite the tonnage, that's a grand total of two new Jagger/Richards songs on your list above. There've always been Stones-related side projects and solo albums. Little if any of that counts in how people evaluate The Rolling Stones.

Your point is taken, though: members of The Stones do still feel the urge to record. It's only as a band that they are defunct when it comes to recording.

And it IS a conundrum that we want them to produce new records but then carp about their quality. They've set a very high standard; they are a tough act to follow.

Quote
Stoneage
Okey, I'll swallow the bait then. LBA 72 is basically right here. The Stones have had an outstanding longevity. But every band has a limited creative period. Even the Stones. They peaked artistically around 1972. Which is very obvious if you study their recent setlists. They managed to stay, somewhat, relevant throughout the seventies and the Tattoo You tour can, in may ways, be seen as their last tour. Then they arose like Phoenix from the ashes in 1989. But that's another story...

What does this mean?

Do you mean in terms of relevance? In terms of success?

.....

Olly.

Their last tour in the original rock and roll settings without horn sections, back up singers, click tracks and pre-recorded tracks. And their last tour with a couple of successful records behind their back,
including a real hit (smu). All recently recorded. And, furthermore, the last tour before the band split in the mid-eighties.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-24 02:01 by Stoneage.

Quote
Rokyfan
(personally, I wish they had kept a lot of the newer stuff in the set and developed it, but they did not)

That is an interesting concept Perhaps you're just talking about developing live versions at all... but do you think they have a history of developing songs after they've been recorded? There are some differences in the songs they play a lot live these day from when they were recorded...but not that much really. I'm mean Brown Sugar and so many others are pretty much them trying to recreate the wonderful studio recordings. I wouldn't particularly say the Stones are a band that develop songs on the road, per se. I wouldn't expect them to develop their newer songs much just by playing them more during live shows. In general, what's on the record is what you're going to get live.

Are the Stones productive overall? Yes of course.

Have they produced enough great music in the last 30 years to successfully tour behind it? Probably not. They would probably be the first ones to admit it. Producing money is the goal, don't have to produce new music to maximize that, if great new music was still the prize, the Stones would probably be delivering more of it.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Rokyfan
(personally, I wish they had kept a lot of the newer stuff in the set and developed it, but they did not)

That is an interesting concept Perhaps you're just talking about developing live versions at all... but do you think they have a history of developing songs after they've been recorded? There are some differences in the songs they play a lot live these day from when they were recorded...but not that much really. I'm mean Brown Sugar and so many others are pretty much them trying to recreate the wonderful studio recordings. I wouldn't particularly say the Stones are a band that develop songs on the road, per se. I wouldn't expect them to develop their newer songs much just by playing them more during live shows. In general, what's on the record is what you're going to get live.

Are the Stones productive overall? Yes of course.

Have they produced enough great music in the last 30 years to successfully tour behind it? Probably not. They would probably be the first ones to admit it. Producing money is the goal, don't have to produce new music to maximize that, if great new music was still the prize, the Stones would probably be delivering more of it.

Welllll... if the Stones would do "I Go Wild" instead of/in addition to YGMR, that'd be a step in the right direction. And Naturalust, remember when the Stones did a good version of SFTD? But hit the nail right on the head: the Stones 'newer' material simply isn't strong enough to tour behind. Still, they could break out stuff from the deluxe EOMS and SG albums. "Claudine" might be fun live. Keith could add some stuff from his upcoming solo album (that will supposedly be released this century) to his set, Mick, Ronnie, they could do some of their 'newer' solo stuff; surely THAT isn't so abhorrent to listen to that they could break it out on stage. That's just some things I think they could do. Maybe I'm way off-base, but...

HearMeKnockin,

Your obsession with the sampled congas amuses me. A little automated percussion never hurt anyone did it?

I can't conceive of them starting SFTD any other way now...

.....

Olly.

Quote
Olly
HearMeKnockin,

Your obsession with the sampled congas amuses me. A little automated percussion never hurt anyone did it?

I can't conceive of them starting SFTD any other way now...

Well, Olly, that #cutthesampledcongas is something I actually stole from a now-defunct thread, and it's (partly) a joke. I'll go back to my old signature at the end of the tour...

With regard to SFTD, they should go back to the guitar intro (even though they never will), which is actually listenable... and I would like to apologize for a comment I made in a past thread in which I wanted the Stones to do the studio intro live, because I never envisioned it would sound as bad as the... the... sampled congas...